Digital BW, The Print

Well John, I am certainly right too, because of course drum scanners 
cover a range, and I didn't and never would suggest it could beat all of 
them. But I agree with you that it is likely to be good enough to beat 
some, and that also the differences between what it can do and the best 
will not matter to all but the most demanding users and applications.

The test results I've seen so far are extremely good. I don't actually 
know what Epson claim, not having bothered to read their press releases 
due to my own scepticism, but it certainly seems a useful advance on 
their previous models.  I'm not surprised that technology improves.

Of course it isn't just a matter of hardware, there is also software and 
the operator to take into account. I've seen drum scans that were pretty 
hopeless. The new Epsons will at least be rather easier to set up and to 
keep working well as well as easier and faster to use than most drum or 
high end flatbeds.

Regards

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



john dean wrote:
> Mark is right. "More or less"? More or less Imacon, possibly, more or
> less PMT, not.What in the world is that about. I pray that you will
> make us eat our words but that isn't likely.
>
> Epson sent out a workshop teacher instructor to APA,(I won't mention
> his name because I am more polite than that) about four years ago.
> People paid over $100.00 to do that seminar. One of the first things
> he said was - if you put together a magnetic film holder avalable from
> parts at Home Depot on this regular Epson flatbed it will give you
> "just as good of quality as any drum scanner". A bunch of us looked at
> each other and busted out laughing, then the whole auditorium groaned,
> we had just paid $100.00 and we knew it was downhill from there. 
>
> Forgive us if we are skeptical of claims like that. This is about the
> 4th version of it that I personally have head about. I just saw one of
> those scans today from a scanner that was sold to my ad photo client
> with similar hyperbole. You have really good photo studios that go out
> and buy these things and think they can do high end work with them.
> Then they end up really pissed and having to farm it out everytime.
> Now they are simply going to the 5D.
>
> Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but we're
> not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and their track
> record is not good.
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
> <petermarshall@...> wrote:
>   
>> Mark,
>>
>> I've not seen Epson's hype. I have looked at the only detailed hands-on 
>> review of the V700 that I'm aware of, by Vincent Oliver, which he 
>> finished a day or so ago. There are a few minor issues, one of which 
>> should be resolved by the V750 which will cut out some minor light 
>> scatter. The results he shows are pretty good, and his conclusion isn't 
>> a great deal different from mine.
>>
>> (Note that I did say "more or less the same quality", not that they 
>> would beat the best, though it will not surprise me if they equal or 
>> beat some that cost a considerable amount more - it shouldn't surprise 
>> anyone given how technology improves. The camera I'm using at the
>>     
> moment 
>   
>> trounces those that cost 20 times a much a few years back after all.)
>>
>> But doubtless your remarks are based on extensive field testing :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Marshall
>> petermarshall@...    
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
>> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
>> The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
>> and elsewhere......
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Savoia wrote:
>>     
>>> Peter,
>>> A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing many  
>>> thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> giving more or less the same
>>>> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>       
>