RE: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed.  The new 4000 ppi scanners are
35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
handle 120 films

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of TREVITHO@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.



In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl writes:

<< If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>

Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital stock
picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
take
120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
concerned
on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
action.

Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust alone
which is far too long.

Does ICE lose scan quality?

Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
drum scan?

I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely
spotless.

If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about ten
fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?

Yours



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk