[filmscanners] Re: Suggestions for scanning 4x5transparencies

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

I agree that the size of the samples made it difficult to know what
caused the differences.  I assumed similar methods were used to capture
each (same unsharp masking etc, but that assumption could be incorrect.

Yes, I do agree also that the contrast on the SS4000 scan was higher, in
fact maybe even too high, or the image was over sharpened.  In general,
I find these types of A:B comparisons hard to peg down, due to so many
variables.

I actually agree with you that a medium format image was more useful
(which is what was done), now that I back-read the thread.  I made the
error of jumping in in the middle of the thread and missed its evolution.

Ultimately, I think higher end flatbed scanners are a compromise for
medium format, but a reasonable one for people who cannot justify a
dedicated medium format film scanner, considering the cost differential.

   In the case of 35mm, I think it is now rarely worthwhile using a
flatbed for scans, as the price differential is not great anymore.

Art


>
> 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