Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad, or ugly?

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad, or ugly?

2002-07-09 by Julian Thomas

I've always been suspicious of his conclusions - could someone with
technical know-how take a look at this
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/gf.htm and see if you think his methodology
is skewed?
Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "heliar333" <heliar@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad,
or ugly?


> > While shopping for a new flatbed scanner, I came across two that
> > feature built in film adaptors capable of scanning any film or
> > transparency - up to 4x5" for the Canon D2400UF CanoScan and up
> > to 6x9" for the Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner.  Both feature
> > 2400x4800 dpi 48 bit scans, street price around $400.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience with these or similar scanners?  How do
> > they compare with dedicated film or drum scanners?  Are they close
> > quality wise, or is this too good to be true?
>
> Having read at www.kenrockwell.com that flatbeds often deliver only
> 60% of their promised resolution, I decided to test with my own
> equipment.
>
> I have both an Epson 1640 and a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. The Epson
> claims to deliver a 1600 dpi scan, but in fact, it most closely
> matches the Minolta at 800 dpi. SO I'd say that 60% is probably a
> good number.
>
> On the other hand, I find that the Epson does a better job getting
> true colors off the film, and has a smoother, broader range of grey
> values.
>
> Applying the same logic to other Epsons, I imagine that the 2450,
> which claims to get 2400 dpi, delivers somewhere around 1500 dpi. At
> 300 dpi output, this means a maximum enlargement of 5x. For 4x5, this
> equates to a little under 16x20. For smaller film, 5x gets small. But
> you get what you pay for - unless Epson has plans to deliver a real
> 2400 dpi scanner soon. I'd gladly pay teixe the current price.
>
> In the meanwhile, I have my sights on the Microtek Artix 2500. Others
> have attested that it delivers a genuine 2500 dpi. At $3500, it ought
> to. I have seen some gorgeous quadtone prints by Richard Wolfson, who
> uses an Agfa 2500 (made by Microtek) for his 4x5 negatives - and they
> are stunning and sharp at 20x24 inches and beyond.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad, or ugly?

2002-07-09 by sdmey4@aol.com

In a message dated 07/09/2002 10:01:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
heliar@... writes:


> In the meanwhile, I have my sights on the Microtek Artix 2500. Others 
> have attested that it delivers a genuine 2500 dpi. At $3500, it ought 
> to. I have seen some gorgeous quadtone prints by Richard Wolfson, who 
> uses an Agfa 2500 (made by Microtek) for his 4x5 negatives - and they 
> are stunning and sharp at 20x24 inches and beyond.
> 
> There have been several New Microtec Artixscan 2500's on e-bay from the 
> same seller over the past few months. I got one for 1400.00. I don't no if 
> he has any more but I watched him sell about 5 of them! All around 
> 12-1400.00 I also have the Agfa 2500 on its last legs , and yes it the same 
> scanner as the Microtek just different software. New Microteks can be had 
> under 2,000 in any case as a few delears have 1/2 off sales. Can easily get 
> 24x30's from either of these scanners from 4x5 and very nice 16x20's from 
> 6x7 negs.
> Steve Meyers




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Digital BW] Re: Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad, or ugly?

2002-07-10 by heliar333

> > There have been several New Microtec Artixscan 2500's on e-bay 
from the 
> > same seller over the past few months. I got one for 1400.00. I 
don't no if 
> > he has any more but I watched him sell about 5 of them! All 
around 
> > 12-1400.00 I also have the Agfa 2500 on its last legs , and yes 
it the same 
> > scanner as the Microtek just different software. New Microteks 
can be had 
> > under 2,000 in any case as a few delears have 1/2 off sales. Can 
easily get 
> > 24x30's from either of these scanners from 4x5 and very nice 
16x20's from 
> > 6x7 negs.

Apparently, Microtek is just about to release their new Scanmaker 
6700, which will scan at a genuine 2400 dpi, and will have ICE 
scratch removal software... priced at under $400. 

Perhaps this will be something to consider.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.