Ross, how critical will you be about your 35mm scans? If all you need
are files optimized for Web viewing or small prints, a good flatbed
should be fine. If you need better quality 35mm scans, a dedicated
film scanner can give them to you. You get higher resolution, more
dynamic range and less noise.
Unfortunately, film scanners that are designed to handle MF are
significantly more expensive than those limited to 35mm. For this
reason, a lot of people get a decent quality 35mm film scanner AND a
decent quality flatbed for MF and larger. The latter also lets you
can documents and other flat media.
hth/ScottGee1
On 11/21/05, Ross Orr <voxbongo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've nearly made up my mind to get an Epson 4990 as my first film
> scanner. (In addition to OM shots, I have some 120 films to scan too.)
>
> Are any of you using one for 35mm film scanning? Any complaints?
>
> Also, I'm a bit bewildered about the software options--e.g. what does
> your extra USD$130 buy you with the "pro" version. I'd be using this
> with Mac OS 10.3. Should I skip the pro bundle and put the money into
> Vuescan instead? Is Viewscan's interface really as cryptic as I hear?
>
> If getting too OT, I'm happy for answers offlist too. thanks,
>
> --Ross
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ross's photo gallery:
> http://flickr.com/photos/vox
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|