Re: Scanners

[Keith Davison <keith.davison@xxxxxxxxx>]

Date sent:      	Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:28:10 -0400
From:           	Joe McCary <mccary@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	Re: Scanners
To:             	panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send reply to:  	panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > I will be scanning 6x7 and 645 trannies for Internet, and some prepress
> > work.  Does anyone have any experience which might help?
> >
> > Yes I would like an Imacon....
> 
> 
> I had the same need a while back and could not afford (still can't) an
> expensive scanner for images needed to send to the net.  I took a chance and
> bought an Epson 1200U Photo Scanner.  It cost me $250 on the net.  It does a
> great job of this delimited use.  Have a look at my website if you want to
> see...

I would warn against the Epson 1200, especially if you are used to 
the output from a Coolscan. I have a 1200 and have tested this and 
two other 1200s (non-consecutive serial nos.) against a Nikon 
LS2000 and an Afga Duoscan T2500. I used the same combination 
of 35mm Velvia trans and Royal Gold 25 neg on each scanner at 
the nearest non-interpolated resolution to the native 1200ppi of the 
Epson, all USM etc. was disabled.
The scans from all three 1200's were very soft, roughly similar to 
interpolated output from a sharp 600ppi scanner. I tested the 1200 
vs. the Agfa on reflective scans, same result. I also tried scanning 
film on, and at different heights above the glass on the 1200, in 
case the unsharpness was a focus issue, I could not get any 
improvement in output.
For those interested, the Nikon was slightly sharper than the Agfa, 
and had better shadow detail on trans, plus the Silverfast software 
is much better than Agfa Fotolook.
I have not tested the Epson 1600, but I have heard rumours that it 
is sharper than the 1200, and it certainly has an improved D range.
If you have gone to the trouble of using MF, it seems a shame to 
lose the quality in the scanning stage.

Hope this helps,

Keith Davison