Digital BW, The Print

Hi Marcel;

I've had scans done with the predecessor to that unit, the 1200 dpi 
Dualscan; They were excellent, very sharp scans that I'm beating 
only in file size with my Nikon 8000ED, and yes the software. Every 
one I know who has owned an AGFA scanner has complained bitterly 
about the interface and its very limited functionality. The Microtek 
is actualy the same machine, with better software. Either wuold do 
quite well for medium or large format, but the file size isn't 
really quite enough for 35mm if you want big prints. Which $3K 
scanner is it you're not happy with?

Steve K

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Marcel Laufer 
<ml12@m...> wrote:
> Again, I'm relatively inexperienced and unsophisticated (no this 
is 
> not one of those porno lines).  I have been unhappy with my B&W 
scans 
> and noticed that a friend had better results with his 
> now-out-of-production Agfa duoscan HiD than I do with my approx. 
$3k 
> desktop film scanner.  I've been scouring around on ebay and 
noticed 
> an Agfa T2500 for sale (at a not particularly cheap price) and did 
a 
> little research and have seen that it was there 'top of the line' 
> professional scanner.  Capable of 2500 DPI optical res. with 
pretty 
> good numbers.  I now know that the software is at least as 
important 
> as the specs and, as I said the Agfa seems pretty good on that 
count.
> Question:  Anybody familiar with this scanner and its software?  
Are 
> there any reasons to believe that this type of scanner (dual) can 
> compete with a Nikon or Polaroid or Minolta film scanner for B&W 
> scanning bragging rights?  Any comments on it?  Lastly, the newer 
> Microtek bears a strong family resemblance to the Agfa (someone 
> actually said that when Agfa left the scanner business Microtek 
> employed their designer) model 1800f; would that be a better unit 
> than the Agfa?
> Thanks
> Marcello
> --