[filmscanners] Fw: Re: Newbie intro.

["Tony Sleep" <TonySleep@halftone.co.uk>]

This message forwarded because I've been playing with my mailserver and
spamfilter setups and managed to prevent it getting to the server. Sorry
about that.

Tony Sleep

---- Forwarded Message ----

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:00:28 -0700
From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
References: <E1CDJ9K-0008EY-00@basilisk.ion-dreams.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1CDJ9K-0008EY-00@basilisk.ion-dreams.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Envelope-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
X-UIDL: _bsD.KfpXBB.mta02.mx
Subject: Re: [filmscanners] RE: Newbie intro.

If you mainly shoot color negs, the dynamic range is less critical,
because the negs are not as dense as slides can be.  This is good for
you because older film scanners tend to have poorer dynamic range, in
general, than never ones.

Since you do not shoot B&W, dICE (an infra-red method of removing dust
and defects) would be open to you, but I have to warn you that the
earlier versions of dICE tended to soften the image somewhat more than
current versions and it does somewhat slow the scanning process down.

If your negs are relatively clean, you probably don't need dICE, and can
probably get away with a bit of spotting and maybe a software dust
removal program (there are/were a few free ones on the web).

Nikon scanners have dICE, but in part, it is because they require it.
The lighting system used (LED) caused two problems.  One is that surface
defects and grain tend to be amplified, so dICE becomes almost a
requirement (dICE doesn't work with true blank and white films, which is
why I asked you what films you use).  The other problem that Nikon's LED
lighting can cause is , due to it being lower brightness than cold
cathode, the len has to be used completely open, and so depth within the
film plane is quite limited.  As a result even normal bowing in the film
can cause either the edges or center to be out of focus.

I would not spend a lot of extra money on buying an older Nikon model,
they were costly new, and the early models tended to have more
mechanical problems than other scanners.

Older color neg films tended to have fairly large grain, and this can
lead to grain aliasing, which exaggerates the grain size, particularly
with scanners in the 2400-2800 dpi range.   That's where most of the
older scanners have their resolution.

You mention that you mainly plan on web images for now.  If that is the
case, you *MIGHT* want to consider one of the flatbed scanners (such as
some of the Epson which were designed for film scanning), which might be
less costly that a film scanner, and at a later date when you have more
interest in printing, get a film scanner.  Certainly, a dedicated film
scanner will provide better images, but depending on how large you think
you will wish to print them at some point, you may not be happy with the
scans from an older film scanner.

Besides the Minolta you are considering, you might also wish to look at
some of the older Polaroids (made by Microtek), and maybe even the
Acer/Benq (they made one which also had dICE).

I would agree with others that for negative film, especially with the
older units, it might be beneficial to consider buying Vuescan, as the
negative film drivers on older machines weren't great.

Art


Chris Aitken wrote:

> Thanks for the advice.
>
> I'm shooting with colour film, and the negs have been stored carefully.
>
> I would dearly love to buy new - but that is not an option. And as
someone
> starting out I really cannot justify the expense of a new scanner.
>
> The main use will be low res web images - but I intend to capture the
image
> at as high a res as is possible - that way I can do with the image what I
> will - be it prints/web/etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>>Sent: 01 October 2004 07:45
>>To: chris@ion-dreams.com
>>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Newbie intro.
>>
>>You haven't mentioned what type of film you shot with,
>>(color, B&W, slide, neg) and how many images you plan to
>>scan, or what condition they
>>tend to be in (well kept and clean, dusty or scratched, etc.)   Also,
>>you didn't mention how they will be used (email, web site,
>>prints (what size), etc. All this will make a difference as
>>to which scanner is most appropriate.
>>
>>Konica-Minolta has improved their scanners with each
>>generation, in some cases considerably, and the price has
>>dropped tremendously along the way, so sometime s anew one
>>won't cost much more that a used.
>>
>>The latest version of the Dual Dimage (version IV) sells for
>>something like $250-300 new, and is a great improvement in
>>quality, resolution and speed over the early versions.
>>
>>Film scanners are complex beast and very costly to get
>>repaired, if you can even find a service facility willing to
>>do so.  Unless the price is really very good, I would
>>consider buying new in this case.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris Aitken wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>I am a new subscriber, have a fairly old AF 35mm SLR that hopefully
>>>will produce some good pictures (with the right input).
>>>
>>>I have been looking on ebay for a film scanner (budget not
>>
>>huge), as I
>>
>>>have been unimpressed by the service offered by places such
>>
>>as Tesco
>>
>>>etc. And why pay to have images burnt to a CD when you have
>>
>>the kit to do so yourself?
>>
>>>I have spotted a few scanners - although I am unsure that
>>
>>Dimage Scan
>>
>>>Dual (1st version) I have my eye on is XP compatible.
>>>
>>>Are there any recommendations for an older, cheaper film scanner?
>>>Maybe someone has just upgraded, and wants to sell their
>>
>>old scanner?
>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>>MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------
>>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
>>'unsubscribe filmscanners'
>>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
>>message title or body
>>
>>--
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body
>




---- End Forwarded Message ----

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