I believe that my responses to your criteria are accurate, but, if they aren't
you will certainly receive additional ones.
Dan Honemann wrote:
> I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
> read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi.
This places you into the Nikon 4000 (though I believe it does not quite reach
4K), the Polaroid, and maybe 1 or 2 others.
> Let's say > 3.6 DMax.
Still the same products listed that match the dpi criteria. Some Minolta's are
here but with lesser dpi.
> ICE could therefore be a big timesaver
This is available in the Nikon and possibly Minolta but at a lesser DPI. ICE
requires an Infra Red channel, not found in all scanners.
> These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the
> expense of sharpness.
ROC restores colors - I do not believe that it soften the pictures. GEM has a
softening effect. This is correctable in a program like Photoshop using Unsharp
Mask (USM)..
> I guess I want a scanner
> that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k
> (US) price range?
Home scanners are less than the 3k cost. Others will have to comment on the
Leica glass like results.
> > etc, what you will be doing with the output,
>
> Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. B&W will go to an
> Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints.
3k dpi is better for this size print.
> > and of course the price you want to pay.
>
> to me it is very much like the difference between the
> Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at:
>
>
>
> Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the
> different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass.
I will leave others to comment here. I have no experience with a Leafscan.
>
>
> > In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at
> > least) is probably the most important.
>
> My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected
> slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much
> like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_
> (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital
> imagery can give me the look I want). For b&w, I'm looking for deep, dark
> blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a
> bit much, eh?!
Remember, very few scanners will give you results that cannot be enhanced by
using PS, PSP, or some other program
> > Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the
> > answers will really help you make the decision.
>
> I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place
> like West Coast Imaging () using
> Tango drum scanners and Lightjet printers--but I can't.
You may want to search for and test a local custom lab that has a Fuji Frontier
or a Noritsu. These units will convert a digital image to a process that
produces a C-41 print.
>
> > This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process
> > I went through about 2 years ago. This list
> > really did the most help after I narrowed the field.
>
> Hope so. But I also believe that at some point I'll just to have to make a
> choice (flipping a coin if necessary) and dive in to discover on my own what
> works and what doesn't for my eyes.
Sometimes that is what it takes
> I have to say that the Leafscan 45 sample at the pytolwany site is the first
> one that really caught my attention as to the look I'm after--and maybe
> that's all the pointers I need.
You may want o check Tony Sleep's site and read his information and see the test
results of the scanners he shows. There are also sites that users of this list
have that can give you an idea of other scanners' capabilities. however, a 72
dpi screen picture is often very different from a print.
>
>
> Dan
