>Yup. That was my experience too. I also found that the 2450 would flare with
>high contrast images, reducing saturation and "pop" in the areas surrounding
>bright objects. The 8000 does much better.
Flare was definitely an issue David, something I had forgotten about.
Still, the 2450 really did a credible job for an inexpensive scanner.
>However, for 8x10s from 645, the 2450 does do a lot better than even the
>best consumer digital (the Sony F707), so I expect that the slight
>improvement the Epson 3200 offers may be enough to reduce the number of
>people moving from the 2450 to the 8000...
Thats quite possible. There is a considerable difference in price,
and not everyone is willing or able to spend so much on a scanner.
If they're scanning 35mm at all though, the 8000 will still provide
much better results than the flatbeds. And the increased resolution
makes it much easier to crop images since you can crop over 50%
and still have a file much larger than the best digital SLRs
currently provide.
>By the way (feel free to flame me on this), I find "shadow detail" _vastly_
>overrated. It looks to me as though slide films have substantially lower
>resolution in the shadows, and that the only thing that's there is mush.
>(Rather than flames, I would appreciate comments on when shadow detail is
>useful.)
Not from me. I'll agree with you. I get better shadow detail from my
Fuji S2, but no where the sharpness or resolution I get from scans.
People often say digital SLRs lack latitude, but thats only in
the highlights. I find more latitude in the shadows.
Best Regards,
Tim Schooler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
