[filmscanners] RE: Flatbed for prints only

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

I think that these days you will probably find that all the flatbeds offer
some form of film scanning capability since the cost differential between
offering it and not offering it is minimal and the inclusion is a big
selling point for most potential amateur and hobbyist buyers - especially
with the slow dying of the scanner market and the turn toward cheap digital
cameras and inkjet printers that are attracting the man-in-the street.  For
most flatbed print scanning, an optical resolution of 1200ppi for a letter
size scan is probably more than enough resolution since prints do not have
all that much of a contrast range or a detail information beyond 300 dpi.
You might be better off looking for a flatbed that has as high a bit depth
as you can get and not get caught up in optical resolutions above 1200 ppi,
since the higher optical resolutions are only required when you are scanning
35mm or medium format film frames and want to enlarge them into 8x10 or 11 x
14 or larger print sizes with as little interpolation as possible.  This is
usually not the problem when scanning prints.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
> rkoziol3@comcast.net
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:01 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Flatbed for prints only
>
> Hi,
>
> Most of the posts here are for film scanners, but I thought
> I'd ask for your opinion on a flatbad.
>
> I have a Umax Astra 2100U flatbed (circa 1999), that is a bit
> too slow.  It's a USB 1.1 mdoel.  The scan quality could
> probably stand improvement.
>
> Can anyone recommend a flatbed, which produces good print
> scans, but does not necessarily have a film attachment.  This
> I hope would lower the price as well.  I was hoping to find a
> flatbad for around $100.
> Format no bigger than std 8.5x11 or A4 (or close to it).
>
> Most flatbed reviews I read, lean on the film scan
> evaluation.  I do not care about that at all.  For film, I'd
> use a dedicated scanner.
>
> I read about Epson Perfection 4990, and it seems a good
> candidate, but again it has film scanning which I do not
> need.  The cheaper scanners do not get reviews at all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rich
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/205 - Release
> Date: 12/16/2005
>
>

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/205 - Release Date: 12/16/2005



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