I have a 1800. It is made by a company called Pacific Image whose website is
at:
www.scanace.com
I have a folder of images I produced using this scanner at:
Overall I came to like this scanner - though my first few scans made me howl
in disappointment. I bought it at Jessops (in the UK) and found that its
driver was well out of date. When I downloaded the latest driver from the
webby, the images improved dramatically - so I suggest the download is
essential.
I turned-off the auto-exposure, auto-gamma features of the scanning software.
I did "flat" scans, for which I turned down the gamma control by two notches
and reduced the contrast, I think. The aim of this was to ensure that the
histogram fell well within 0 and 255. Otherwise the scanner, by default,
clips black and white. Also I didn't like the auto-exposure because every
scan I did (of a single image) the colour/tonality seemed different.
I scanned in 12-bit mode (16-bit output files - 24MB per frame) and
manipulated in PS. I got what I consider to be pretty good results - but I'm
not a detail/colour/tonality fascist (well I wasn't...) so I wouldn't
recommend this scanner to anyone who considers themself a perfectionist.
The scanner can only take bare strips of film - it won't accept mounted
slides. You position the film by hand per frame. I found that left-right
centring was problematic as there are no guides - and the scanner cannot
capture a full 36x24mm frame (it crops width by about 3-4mm and height by
about 1mm - these are guesses). I ended-up being pretty good at achieving the
centring I required, judging by eye.
I was amazed to discover that this scanner performs flawlessly-aligned
multiple scans. A friend took some night shot brackets and with my scanner we
were able to scan each image and line them up *perfectly* (accurate to the
pixel) in PS. It still amazes me... See the following image for an example:
Overall the images are a bit "grainy" and "noisy", but most people you show
these images to see no problems at all. I have found that my learning curve
with PS has demonstrated more difference in final images between my first 1800
scans and my last ones, than in the 1800 scans compared with the LS40 scans -
but that is because the "flat-scan" technique relies upon you being skilled
with PS to pull the "image" out of the "data". I don't think the auto-images
the 1800 produces are so great - so you will have to do more work than with an
LS40. Also, since the scanner is not supported by Vuescan, you won't be able
to benefit from the wonders of Vuescan.
I recommend this scanner to anyone on a seriously tight budget. I also
recommend it to anyone who is interested in getting a feel for this whole
"film scanning" game at low cost. You need a PC or Mac with USB. Sell it if
you decide you need something more serious.
Unfortunately after scanning and editing about five rolls of film, I got so
cheesed-off dealing with scratch damage in my negs that once I discovered the
LS40 I just knew I had to have one. I didn't buy the LS40 for its superior
image - but for ICE... Yes the Nikon is superior in every way (my friend with
the HP S20 is also rather envious of the Nikon) but as a way to try-out DIY
film-scanning, the 1800 is good.
Of course, if you're a bit uncertain about filmscanning, then it is prolly
worth sending in your films to get them scanned onto Kodak Photo CD. I
decided against this approach on the basis that I wanted control over
cropping/exposure and also because being a bit of a geek, I wanted to get
involved in the scanning process. Scratch removal was just a bit too much
like hard work though!
I will be selling my 1800, soon, now that I'm settled with the LS40.
Jawed
