on 10/27/02 4:51 PM, Arthur Entlich at artistic-1@shaw.ca wrote:
> Well, I have two comments about this:
>
> 1) I looked at the website link, and it is VERY obvious, even on the
> small jpegs which is which. The SS4000 scan is much more sharp and
> detailed. It literally didn't take me a second to figure out which was
> which.
>
> 2) A better comparison, in my opinion, would have been to do a 35mm
> slide with both scanners, because it is where the flatbeds really begin
> to fall apart. You are "accommodating" the flatbed with a larger format
> image to get the information you require from it.
>
> I think that for medium format films (especially larger than 2.25" x
> 2.25", flatbed become a reasonable alternative in non-critical
> applications, mainly due to the tremendous savings over dedicated medium
> format film scanners. But let's not fool ourselves, a dedicated film
> scanner, or very top of the line flatbed with a separate film drawer is
> always going to surpass the quality of a relatively inexpensive flatbed,
> if nothing more than because of the nature of the mechanics and glass
> quality.
>
> For 35mm scanning, and particularly in consideration of current price
> drops, a dedicated film scanner is cost effective.
>
> Art
>
> 2)
>
> Johnny Johnson wrote:
>
>> At 11:10 PM 10/25/02 -0500, Stan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Put another way, is it silly/unwise/profligate to spend more on a scanner
>>> than the $399 or so for a 2450 if the printing device will be something like
>>> a 2200 inkjet?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Stan,
>>
>> I had a friend scan a 2 1/4 slide on his Epson 2450. Then I cut the trans
>> down just enough that I could scan it on my Polaroid SS4000 at
>> 4000spi. Next I printed out crops from the scans on my Epson 1270 printer
>> at a scale that would equate to a 13"x13" print of the full 2 1/4"
>> slide. If I remember correctly my friend used the Epson twain with the
>> 2450 and I used Silverfast with the SS4000. The colors from the two scans
>> were slightly different, shadow detail was very similar, and the scan from
>> the SS4000 was just a touch sharper but it wasn't anything that jumped out
>> at you in the prints or on the screen. In fact, it was hard for me to tell
>> any difference in the details in the two prints when viewed from arms
>> length. I would think that there would be even less of a difference when
>> scanning 4x5s.
>>
>> Here's a scan of the prints that I made for comparison. They were printed
>> on a single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 Office Depot glossy paper. The 2450 scans
>> are at the top and the SS4000 scans are at the bottom.
>>
>> <>
>>
>> Later,
>> Johnny
>>
>> __________________________
>> Johnny Johnson
>> Lilburn, GA
>> mailto:jjohnso4@attbi.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
> body
For me, the difference was primarily in the contrast and color, which were
clearly superior in the SS4000. What's not obvious is how much of that
difference might be in the way the image was processed in the software. I
couldn't see any clear difference in sharpness at that scale.
Also, the comparison that would be more meaningful for me would be to
compare the 2450 scan with medium format scanner images, since most of us
would not consider using a flatbed for 35mm film. But it might just be
something economical for medium and large format film.
Berry Ives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
