[filmscanners] RE: Hello/ routine question

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Arthur,

I certainly would have never guessed anyone would have designed a scanner in
such a fashion, thanks for the correction.  Hopefully, not many were.  I'm
sure the original poster is glad you have knowledge of "arcane" consumer
level scanners ;-).

Austin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:38 AM
> To: austin@darkroom.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Hello/ routine question
>
>
> The HP 5100A scanner is also known as the original HP Photosmart
> scanner, which is indeed one of the earlier ones.  The person who
> commented that it is best at scanning negatives is correct.  It has very
>   poor density range and has a very major problem with either banding or
> other artifacts in dense areas of slides.
>
> Further, it does not use ANY film carriers.  It is a contraption that
> changes its front configuration to accept film, (which the original
> software, at least, assumed were negative strips), mounted slides (which
> the scanner assumed were positives, or a 5" wide lip for reflective
> images up to 5 x 7" (at 300 dpi).
>
> I do believe the software may have been updated to allow a person to
> select slide film strip, so they could scan slides that were unmounted.
>
> At the time, the model was considered the best "value" film scanner for
> its cost. It is a SCSI device, and was "cheap" at under $500 US.  Today,
> its relatively low resolution (2400 dpi at CCD and much less in actual
> output), poor density range, causing banding and artifacts with slides,
> tendency to wear, misalign and fail due to the many mechanical parts,
> mediocre software, and other factors (it can often scratch a film strip
> that is more than 4 frames long if used to capture the fifth and sixth
> frame) make it worth pretty much what this person paid for it (nothing).
>
> If it is the only film scanner the person owns and they are not doing
> critical scanning (keeping the printed size to 8x10" or less) and
> willing to put up with the other inadequacies, it is a usable product.
> As has been mentioned, best to NOT use the reflective configuration,
> since it is only a 5 x7" 300 dpi reflective scanner and pretty much any
> flatbed made in the last few years will eclipse that and do a better job
> of it also for about $50.
>
> I owned several of these while I tried to get a good one.  It was
> eventually updated to a USB version which had numerous improvements and
> many of the same failings (and new ones).
>
> There are several free alternative software packages which were written
> for it, if a person takes the time to hunt around on the web, and HP did
> update the software as well.
>
> Art
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Robert,
> >
> >
> >>2.  This scanner is certainly best at scanning negatives,
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe the scanner is better or worse at negatives or
> positives,
> > unless it's an older scanner that doesn't support the density range of
> > positives.
> >
> >
> >>but you can scan
> >>unmounted slides (or positive film). If the software doesn't
> specifically
> >>address scanning unmounted slide film...
> >>
> >
> > Why would it have to "specifically address scanning unmounted
> slide film"?
> > Just select positive, and use a film holder.  As far as the software is
> > concerned, it should be no different than scanning a slide.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body