AG Schnozz wrote:
>Moose analyzed:
>
>
>>After some time making your own prints for commercial jobs,
>>you found that it was better business to have the printing
>>done by specialists. In theory, you should investigate price
>>and quality of outside scanning services.
>>
>>
>Good thinking, but probably a little different scenario. In the
>case of printing, DIY with a high-end Epson gives me about the
>same square-inch printing costs for enlargements and a far
>higher per-print cost for anything smaller than 8x10. Add
>workflow costs and it really did make more sense for me to
>outsource at this time. This may change at some point, but for
>right now I'm better off.
>
>
I wasn't saying it is directly analogous, just pointing out that you
have already discovered that do it yourself isn't always the
cost/benefit winner. And proposing that you consider that may also be
the case with scanning.
>>You could set up 50 slide stacks ahead of time and just drop
>>by from time to time to feed them in...
>>
>>
>Well, I've got to "manage" and text edit the pictures anyway.
>Even in the all-digital world I spend no less than 10 minutes
>per image.
>
>
I'm not talking about that time. I'm talking about the time tethered to
the computer, or going back and forth to it regularly, to feed it new
bits of 4 slides at a time. If you have other things to do on the
computer, it isn't too bad, although still quite distracting. If you
need to be doing other things
>I'm kinda leaning towards the Minolta right now. That extra
>resolution is awefully appealing.
>
>
What? The E-1 king saying that? The minister of resolution is overrated
and less important than other factors? Etc. Etc., with more question
marks. :-)
All that aside, there's resolution and there's resolution. The 4800 dpi
flatbeds don't resolve as much detail as a good 4000 dpi film scanner,
pretty close, but no cigar
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_14.htm>.
Looks like their effective eq. is somewhere around 3000 -3500 dpi. At
the time I did my research, it appeared clear to me from tests, samples,
the winnowed forums posts that made any sense, that the same was true of
the 5400. It scanned more lines and made bigger files, but didn't seem
to actually resolve any more detail that the C & N 4000 dpi scanners. I
have no idea whether that has changed with the E model.
For other reasons, I've just rescanned a couple of frames that I
originally scanned on the FS2710 at 2720 dpi on the FS 4000 at 4000 dpi.
That's a 47% increase in resolution, and one might expect a quite
significant improvement in visible detail. In fact, the difference,
while visible, is pretty darn small. Now I wasn't actually expecting
much, based on my research. I upgraded mostly for the IR channel for
hardware based automated dust removal. That alone is worth the price.
Secondarily the automated scanning of one film holder at a time, rather
than having to push it in one click at a time is a useful time and
distraction saver.
I'll post some full pixel samples, so you can see what I'm talking about.
Even if the E model is really higher resolution that the prior, plain
5400, I seriously doubt it will make much practical difference in
resolution. The law of diminishing return suggests that a 35% increase
on top of a 45% increase that had only a small effect is likely to be
underwhelming. In fact, some sources suggested that the apparent lack of
additional resolution in the 5400 was not its fault, but simply reaching
the limit of what's there to be resolved. I'm not sure about that
argument, but the practical lack of additional detail convinced me that
particular 5400 wasn't worth anything to me.
Vincent Oliver of Photo-i, an old pro who has done serious testing of
more scanners than just about anybody in the world, contends that
anything over a true 3200 dpi doesn't get you anything of practical use
to a pro photographer. Anyway, I'm not trying convince you, just
suggesting that you look carefully, and look beyond published specs,
before you leap.
What we really need is a film scanner with an auto-loader for 4-6 frame
strips of unmounted film. Or a way to stick them together end to end so
they will work in the Nikon film strip feeder for the 5000.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|