Digital BW, The Print

At 04:57 PM 2/27/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Ed,
>
>What is the resolution of your Powerlook III?  What is there that you
>don't like?, just the long scan times? Any scanner that has a true
>optical resolution of 1800 DPI resolution and a SHARP LENS should
>certainly do what you ask.  2500  Optical resolution DPI delivers a 300
>megabyte file for a 4x5 neg. Enough for a 40 by 60 inch print. Some of
>the epson scanners with the 1600 DPI aren't really that. They use
>stepper motors, which make them closer to 800 DPI. Canon has a new 2400
>Optical flat bed for only $400, but I haven't actually seen results from
>this scanner.
>
>eshotwell2800 wrote:
>> 
>> Help!  I need to upgrade my scanner.  I am a landscape photographer
>> working with 4x5" and 8x10" B&W negatives and color transparencies.
>> I use the Cone Piezography system to output my prints.  I am
>> dissatisfied with the scan speed, quality and interface of my Umax
>> PowerLook III scanner and I feel that it must be time to upgrade.
>>         I am using the Mac G4 and would like to find today's BEST scanner
>> for under $1500.00 or so.  Is the Microtek Artiscan 1100 the best or
>> is the Epson 1680, or is it something else?  I've gotten
>> recommendations of scanners from $149 to $50,000.
>>         Surely there must be a clear leader in todays market.
>> 
>> Ed Shotwell
>> 

Ed,
My PLIII seems limited to a real 1200dpi - above that it howls like a
banshee doing its stepper motor jitter to get to 2400. I would think 1200 is
plenty for 8 x 10.  For what it's worth I have a review of the Epson 2450 on
my pages below. It only does up to a tad under 5in. wide. I like it and the
SilverFast software better than the PLIII for doing pans.

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround