|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I think you raise an interesting option for people not requiring top quality film scans. Flatbed scanners are improving their resolution and even somewhat their dynamic range. In fairness, when you bought your LS-2000, flatbed scanners couldn't scan at current resolutions, unless you were willing to pay even more than the LS-2000 cost. Further, current film scanners have advanced beyond the LS2000, and you can now get a film scanner with better resolution than the HP 7400C for 35mm scans that costs little more than the flatbed (Acer Scanwit 2720, Canon FS7210, etc) I think that more to the point, people needing the ability to scan medium format film should look more closely at the newer inexpensive flatbeds, unless, again, the best current technology has to offer is required. Art Lars-Ake Larsson wrote: > Recently we bought a Hewlett-Packard 7400C scanner which is a flatbed scanner. > It has a transparency adapter which allows for scanning film up to 5 by 5 > inches. > > I have compared a scan from that new HP scanner with a scan from my old Nikon > LS-2000 film scanner. > The result shows that the Nikon scanner is better - the scan has more details - > than the HP scanner. But from my point of view, I do not consider the difference > to be big enough to justify buying an expensive film scanner. I.e. today I > should not have bought the Nikon LS-2000 if I had the HP 7400C. > > In any case, I have to adjust the scans from both scanners in Photoshop to get > what I want. > > I have published the two example scans at > http://www.cybis.se/forfun/digfoto/fork2e.htm > > /Lars-Åke Larsson > www.cybis.se > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.