06-26-2010, 08:13 AM
[quote name='Comte' date='06 June 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1275833005' post='272']
So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.
The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).
Do you know the difference?
[/quote]
I can't speak to comparative quality vis-a-vis current flatbed scanners, but I have an Epson Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and am very pleased with its performance. The Epson Multiscan, I think, scans medium format film. Reviews from several years ago (when these were more prevalent) suggested that many of the Nikon models were good, too, so you could look for a Super Coolscan 9000. [I just checked, and there is a new one on Ebay.]
There are a couple items worth considering, though. The primary difficulty with dedicated film scanners is that most of the decent scanners have disappeared from the marketplace. One can still find used scanners, just don't expect any product support. And of course they're not cheap.
Secondarily there is the issue of software drivers, particularly if you use a 64-bit system. At least one individual offers a respectable solution called VueScan: http://www.hamrick.com/. I haven't tried it yet, but as I am migrating to a 64-bit Win7 OS + Photoshop CS5 I expect I may in the near future. Hamrick's software also supports the flatbed scanners, and some users report much better results with his software than their products' software.
In short, you'll have to read old product reviews and decide if any differences in performance are worth the euros. This also may depend on the number of images you have, the quality/repeatability of those images, and the time it may take to scan them all. For many of my nature images, I find it easier to revisit the subjects and rephotograph them digitally, with hugely improved color accuracy as a bonus.
Hope this helps...
Scott
So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.
The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).
Do you know the difference?
[/quote]
I can't speak to comparative quality vis-a-vis current flatbed scanners, but I have an Epson Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and am very pleased with its performance. The Epson Multiscan, I think, scans medium format film. Reviews from several years ago (when these were more prevalent) suggested that many of the Nikon models were good, too, so you could look for a Super Coolscan 9000. [I just checked, and there is a new one on Ebay.]
There are a couple items worth considering, though. The primary difficulty with dedicated film scanners is that most of the decent scanners have disappeared from the marketplace. One can still find used scanners, just don't expect any product support. And of course they're not cheap.
Secondarily there is the issue of software drivers, particularly if you use a 64-bit system. At least one individual offers a respectable solution called VueScan: http://www.hamrick.com/. I haven't tried it yet, but as I am migrating to a 64-bit Win7 OS + Photoshop CS5 I expect I may in the near future. Hamrick's software also supports the flatbed scanners, and some users report much better results with his software than their products' software.
In short, you'll have to read old product reviews and decide if any differences in performance are worth the euros. This also may depend on the number of images you have, the quality/repeatability of those images, and the time it may take to scan them all. For many of my nature images, I find it easier to revisit the subjects and rephotograph them digitally, with hugely improved color accuracy as a bonus.
Hope this helps...
Scott