|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Well, terrible might be a slight over response. Let's just say that film scans on an under $200 flatbed scanner will not be close to a film scanner in quality. But even the cheapest film scanner will cost you nearly double the $200 budget you have. I suggest taking some film and slides to a dealer in your area who has a few flatbeds with film scanning ability and see if the quality is adequate for your needs. Website images can survive a flatbed scan, since you only need 70-100 dpi, and most flatbeds today in your price range will do 1200 dpi optical or more, and maybe even 1600 or 2400 dpi, meaning you can create a full page image. Just don't expect deeper shadows to show a lot of detail, and to be noiseless with slides. Negatives will probably provide better results if your software can handle striping the orange dye mask and doing inversions. With negatives, the noisiest shadows regions of the negs end up being highlight in the final image, which hides the noise data better, and they aren't as dense in the darker areas as slides to begin with. Art Francoise Frigola wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > Indeed, I did not specify the usage of the scanner: > > We will use it for website images, and for our museum database. If we need > high resolution slide scanning, I will take care of it myself. > > Your description of slide scanning sounds dreadful... > > I might suggest our board to get a simple flat bed for now, and invest in a > film scanner when we have the funds. > > Thanks, > > Francoise Frigola > IAHS Computer & Research Chair > > Original Inkjet Prints in Multiple ~ Sculpture > http://www.pe.net/~franou/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arthur Entlich" <email@example.com> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 12:25 AM > Subject: Re: Scanner suggestion for small organization? > > > >>Hi Francoise, >> >>Within your budget range, you will have to make some compromises. >> >>The reflective art, (paper, photos, newspapers, magazines, etc) are easy >>these days with any 600 dpi optical scanner for even under $100 >> >>The problem is the film, both negs and slides. I assume most of these >>will be 35mm, and that makes it even harder to deal with. >> >>One thing you don't mention is what you plan to do with the scans. WIll >>they be on a web site? Printed with an inkjet, printed in a catalogue? >> >>The minimum resolution you need for a full screen computer image from a >>35mm frame is about 1200 dpi optical. Of course, 2400 dpi is even >>better, for printing purposes from 35mm film. This means you need a >>flatbed scanner with a transmissive light source. (light hood). >> >>The main problem is that flatbed scanners, in general, are designed with >>reflective art in mind which rarely requires more than a dynamic range >>of 2.6 dMAX. Film needs 3.8 or more. So, you will need to be happy >>with lower dynamic range in cheaper flatbeds. This means underexposed >>images will be very noisy and even darker areas of slides will be noisy >>or inaccessible. >> >>Microtek, Epson, and Umax all make good scanners in this range. Try to >>get a CCD sensor rather than CIS, not only is this older technology >>better, it is cheaper and lasts longer. If you can test the scanner >>with different media, that would be best since each model tends to have >>different abilities and specs alone will not tell the full story. >> >>Art >> > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.