Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 9:54 PM -0400 7/14/00, Isaac Crawford wrote: > I've been thinking about getting into the digital end of things for a >while, but I'm having problems picking a scanner. Obviously I would like the >best possible for my 35mm work, but I also shoot in larger formats as well. >I would be printing no larger than 11x14 at home, if I wanted larger, I'd >probably get a drum scan and lightjet print made. Another potential problem >is the fact that I like to shoot B&W slides (processed in the dr5 process @ >AIM). This particular process can have a wicked DMAX, worse than Velvia >even, and the worst part is, there is usually information in there... > This leads me to my question, without spending a fortune (under 2 grand >please!), would the Microtek Artixscan 1100 be about as good as I can get? >Would there be any potential advantage to getting a dedicated 35mm scanner >like a Nikon LS-2000? TIA for any guidance in this situation! > >Isaac There is lots of advantage in getting a scanner like the LS2000. It is particulary in getting information out of the densest areas of a film that the LS2000 has an advantage. The Polaroid 4000 has higher resolution, but the Nikon does better in getting into the shadows, and only the $5000+ flatbeds even start to approach either one of these as far as the dynamic range is concerned. Flatbeds often have other advantages, but in this area they come in a distant second (usually). Also, the true optical resolution is usually less than the manufacturer states, due mainly to unavoidable losses in the system. These losses tend to be higher in flatbeds due to greater tolerances, longer optical paths, more flare, etc. If a flatbed spec says it has 1000 dpi optical resolution, it is at best comparable to a dedicated 35mm scanner of 750dpi or less (again, usually). Of course, the stated optical resolution of the 35mm scanners does not quite meet the specs either, but it comes closer. In both cases the file size after scanning seems to bear out the manufacturer's claims, but a lot of those pixels do not contain additional information. In any case, if you want 11x14 prints from 35mm, the dedicated film scanners are pushed to their very limit, let along something like the Artixscan. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com