Re: filmscanners: Scanning 4x5 under $500 US?

["Brian D. Plikaytis" <bdplikaytis@bellsouth.net>]

I'm using the Epson 1640 with it's transparency adapter to scan my 4x5 black
and white negs. I find it is doing a fairly good job and I am getting output
that surpasses my darkroom prints. However, I did find that for a given
negative, I got much more out of the shadow areas with Vuescan as it allows
multiple pass scanning whereas the Epson TWAIN driver does not. I would
strongly recommend Vuescan if you purchase the Epson.


Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------
respond to bdplikaytis@bellsouth.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shough, Dean" <dean.shough@lmco.com>
To: <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:06 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Scanning 4x5 under $500 US?


> Not this question again!  But scanners are coming way down in price, their
> resolution is going up, and now 12, 14, and even 16 bits per color are
> readily available.  I have some 20 year old 4x5s (B&W, negative, and
slide)
> that I would like to play with again - I haven't worked with them or done
> any large format since I no longer have my own darkroom.
>
> I am in the market for a flatbed scanner that can do  reasonable job with
4
> by 5 film.  I figure 1200 dpi is good enough for what I want, although I
> have nothing against 1600 or 2400 dpi.  ;-)  My main concern with any
> flatbed scanner is the noise, particularly in slide shadows.  The scanners
I
> am considering are:
>
> Epson Perfection 1640SU Photo  -  $299, USB & SCSI, 1600 dpi
> Microtek ScanMaker 5700 - $332, Firewire, 1200 dpi
> HP ScanJet 7400C - $440, SCSI and USB, 2400 dpi
> Canon Canoscan D2400F - $467, USB, 2400 dpi
> Agfa - no longer makes consumer scanners
>
> My questions about these scanners are:
>
> 1) Has anybody compared the noise or image quality of these scanners.  I
> would really like information where someone has tested at least two of
these
> scanners, using either slides or negatives, and can state that scanner A
is
> better than scanner B for the following reason...
>
> 2) Can anybody verify that these scanners work with VueScan, particularly
on
> the Mac, either OS 9 or X?  It looks like the HP and Epson run under
VueScan
> but that the Microtek and Canon will not.
>
> 3) Are the outputs of the HP and Epson limited to sRGB?  I have been lead
to
> believe that this is the case with their consumer scanners.
>
> 4) Do all except the Microtek "fake" their high resolution by either
> microstepping a single CCD or using a pair of CCDs?  I don't think any are
> using CCDs with more than 10,400 elements.
>
> 5) The Canon features FARE (similar to ICE).  Does it require one scan or
> two in order to read the IR image?  I am concerned about image
registration
> problems.
>
> 6) Is the output of the HP 16 bits or is it only capable of outputting 8
> bits per color?  With HP's software and with VueScan?
>
> 7) Any hidden gottchas?  Like no exposure control, crappie software, etc.
>
> 8) How much would I gain by going up to $1000?  I am thinking here of the
> Epson 1680 or the Microtek 8700.
>
> --------
> Dean Shough
> dean.shough@lmco.com