Digital BW, The Print

Victor, thank you so much for the information, so many others get 
off on tangents.

No I am only considering film scanners.  From what your saying 
sounds like the old debate of difussion vs. condensor enlargers.  I 
will probably be shooting primarily chromogenic BW film, but I will 
also be doing a lot of color; I would also like to scan some of my 
old BW negs and would like to be able to have the option to shoot 
and develope convientional BW film; would the Poloroid and Microtek 
scanner work well for all of these applications?  Also, if Poloroid 
isn't supporting these scanners, is there any problem getting them 
serviced if I was to pick up a used one or should I stick with 
Microtek at this point, in your opinion?
Thanks
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Victor 
Landweber <victor@l...> wrote:
> Randy --
> 
> I presume by "others" you mean a high-resolution flat-bed scanner. 
I 
> believe that a properly used film scanner -- one dedicated to 
scanning film 
> -- will provide scans superior to those made with a flat-bed 
scanner of 
> similar specifications. Part of this may be superior optics; part 
may be 
> the interface of hardware and software that's been designed for a 
specific 
> purpose.
> 
> This being said, there are several reasons why I consider the 
Polaroid 
> SprintScan120 (available used on eBay and elsewhere) or the 
similar 
> Microtek ArtixScan 120tf (currently available from retail sources 
such as 
> www.bhphoto.com for $1700) to provide superior 4000 dpi scanning 
for 
> black-and-white negatives. These are:
> 
> 1. The Polaroid and Microtek scanners use a diffuse light source; 
the Nikon 
> uses a highly collimated source. A diffuse source reduces the 
appearance of 
> dust and scratches. Nikon includes "Digital Ice" with their 
scanner which 
> is highly effective with dye-based films such as chromogenic 
> black-and-white films, but DOES NOT WORK with silver-image black-
and-white 
> negatives (or incidentally with Kodachrome) . This may be the best 
reason 
> to prefer a Polaroid or Microtek scanner to the Nikon.
> 
> 2. The Nikon scanner uses a dimmer light source than the Polaroid 
or 
> Microtek so that its lens must work at a larger aperture. However 
excellent 
> the Nikon optics may be, the large aperture provides less depth of 
field so 
> that unless the film is held flat in a glass film holder, normally 
buckled 
> film is likely to show some loss of sharpness at its edges or 
corners. The 
> smaller aperture lens in the Polaroid or Microtek scanners 
provides a 
> satisfactorily sharp image all the way to the corners even with 
film held 
> in a glassless carrier. The advantage of a glassless carrier is 
that you 
> only have the two surfaces of the film to keep clean instead of 
the six 
> surfaces of film plus two pieces of glass. The dust that may 
appear on a 
> Nikon scan is additionally problematic since the Nikon's 
collimated light 
> source will project it more sharply than would the Polaroid or 
Microtek's 
> diffuse source.
> 
> 3. There have been reports that scans made with the Nikon 8000 may 
show 
> banding in areas of even tonality if the scanner is used in its 
high-speed 
> mode which I believe scans three lines at a time. I don't know if 
Nikon has 
> remedied this in the 9000. The banding is eliminated if you turn 
off the 
> high-speed mode so that scans are made one line at a time, but 
then a scan 
> takes three times as long. There is no such problem with the 
Polaroid or 
> Microtek scanners.
> 
> 4. A few more mundane considerations: the Polaroid or Microtek 
scanner is 
> smaller, quieter, and cheaper. My Polaroid SprintScan 120 came 
with the 
> full version of SilverFast AI software which I've updated to the 
latest 
> version. The current version of SilverFast is stable and powerful 
and 
> includes remarkably satisfactory dedicated profiles of dozens of 
> black-and-white films.
> 
> I went through a similar decision process prior to buying my 
Polaroid 120. 
> Even though Polaroid has discontinued their line of scanners, my 
SprintScan 
> 120 continues to provide superior scans; it has never required 
warranty 
> service; and I remain satisfied with my purchase.
> 
> Hope this has been useful.
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
> At 07:34 PM 2/18/2004, randyrancier wrote:
> >Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that
> >work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a
> >4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the
> >Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is 
there a
> >clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon 
make
> >any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
> >Thanks again,
> >Randy