Daniel Mitchell wrote:
>Willie Wonka wrote:
>
>
>>I might add, that my scanner is a CanoScan 1250U2F (2400X1200), one of the
>>best flatbeads at the time, but nothing like a dedicated film/drum scanner.
>>
>>Do you have any sample negative/slide scans you could post somewhere
>>(or mail to me off-list)? I'm curious about the quality of transparency
>>adapters, and while reviews seem to be more positive recently than they
>>were last time I looked, nowhere has samples..
>>
For recent, higher end flatbeds with transpareny adapters built in, the
reviews at Photo-i can't be beat. Excellent reviews with lots of real
examples <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html>. You have to look at both
the home page and the reviews page to find all the reviews.
All of the winter images Richard has been posting are scanned on an
Epson 3170 flatbed.
Back in Nov. I posted samples from a 5000F, a pretty cheap flatbed, and
C.H. commented further about the Epson 4870 and my samples:
>C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>> With my experience the Epson 4870 do reach around 2800dpi resolution.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>> I have no idea why you will think Vuescan will make it better,
>
> Reports on forums and personal experience with a Can*n 5000F.
> Ed Hamrick just finished film support for the 5000F, so I had to try
> it out. I scanned an old outtake slide from a graduation
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Combo.jpg. Be sure to view at 100%,
> some browsers/settings will reduce it to fit on the screen. The bottom
> row of samples are:
>
> 1. 5000F using CanoScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 2. 5000F using VueScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 3. FS2710 using VueScan at 2700 dpi, downsampled to same size as 2400
> dpi scans. I think I sharpened this, not sure.
> 4. Scan #3 with grain reduction applied with NeatImage.
>
> The 2 samples at the top are full pixel versions of #3 & 4 before size
> reduction, so you can see downsizing hasn't changed anything significant.
>
> As you can see, the Canoscan software gives a significantly less
> detailed image with less contrast than VueScan with this scanner.
> Color balance is off too and it crops the image on all sides. Oh, and
> takes 2-3 times as long to scan.
>
>> I have just tried both Vuescan and Epson original software both give
>> the same resolution, see
>> the cropped scans below:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/Vuescan-1.jpg
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/Epson-1.jpg
>> <http://www.accura.com.hk/Epson-1.jpg>
>>
>> They look very soft, but remember they are scanned at 4800dpi and no
>> sharpen applied.
>
> Thanks for the samples. I can't pick either one out as better than the
> other. More grist for my decision mill.
I later added a scan of the same image with a Canon FS4000 dedicated
film scanner:
> I scanned the same slide on the FS4000 as in the examples I posted
> from the can*n 5000F and FS2710. There is clearly less obviou
> sand smaller graininess in the 4000 dpi scan.
>
>I have added to http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/ComboA.jpg a sample
>of the same slide scanned on the FS4000 and downsized to match the 2720
>dpi scan. Order of the top row is now raw 2720 dpi scan, raw 4000 dpi
>scan downsized and 2720 dpi scan processed in NeatImage. Its very
>interesting to me that the higher resolution actually resulted in
>apparently smaller and less prominent grain that the lower dpi scan.
>I'm not sure if more detail is resolved, but more is visible, at least
>partly because it was obscured by the 'grain', and shadow detail is a
>bit better.
>
>I seem to recall examples of higher dpi resulting in grain aliasing on
>some fine grained film. Here is is clearly striking at lower dpi with a
>grainier film, mid 90s AGFA 200RS.
>
Be sure to view ComboA.jpg at 100%.
I hope that gives you some idea of what's out there. With each new round
of upgrades of flatbeds with transparency adapters, they have improved -
to the point that they are really quite close to pure film scanners.
It's also important to relate the performance to what you want the
scanner for. We tend, as I have done above, to evaluate full pixel
sections for every last nuance of resolution, shadow detail, etc. Yet
the results will almost never be seen at that level, but rather as a
whole at rather less magnification. Look at the detail comparisons in
the Photo-i tests of the 9950F and 4990 to the LS4000 film scanner. Why
yes, I can see a little more resolution in the LS4000 scan, but then
look at how big the sample area is on the full frame and imagine a 12x18
print. You are going to need a loupe to see that detail on the print.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
