Digital BW, The Print

Wow,  How much RAM do you need for this??  Does my 2.4Mh processor 
have evough umph to handle it, or will I need to upgrade?
Thanks,
Randy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Colin & Linda 
McKie <colinmckie@x> wrote:
> Hi Randy,
> 
> We looked at the same things a few months ago and bought the 
Minolta 
> Scan Multi Pro. This does MF up to 6x9 at 3200ppi and 35mm at 
4800ppi.
> 
> In a lot of searching on the Web we found less moaning about the 
Minolta 
> than the Nikon apart from the software, which has now been 
improved, and 
> I never intended to use anything but Vuescan anyway. The main 
advantages 
> of the Minolta are better depth of field and better film carriers 
as 
> standard. The claimed Dmax figures are as daft as everyone else's 
and 
> hardly relevant for B&W anyway. We have found that the Scanhancer 
> diffuser gives an improvement in apparent grain with fine grain 
film (eg 
> Pan F) but not quite so much on Delta 3200 (which we use for 
pinholes).
> 
> Whichever scanner you choose, you should use 16 bit files as far 
as 
> possible for B&W, which means you need lots of computing power, 
memory 
> and storage space. A 120 film scanned at 3200ppi comes to about 
1.5GB!
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Colin
> 
> http://www.travelling-light.net/
> 
> 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