looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by Dick La » Sun, 28 May 2000 04:00:00



hi,
I am looking for a flatbed scanner for 120films both slide and negative.
Just wondering which of the following is the best deal?

Epson E 1600 Pro, it cost a lot...., Dmax 3.3 1600*3200dpi, powerful
software, duo focus thing.

Epson 1200U, a third of the cost of 1600pro but the Dmax is only 3.0,
1200*2400dpi.

Umax 2200, the cheapest, 600*1200dpi, Dmax unknown, should be less than 3,
tons of software.

or do you have suggestion is not in my list? I will mostly use the scanner
for printing with my Epson 1270, so I mostly looking for quality with
reasonable price.
thanks for your help.

Dick

 
 
 

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by Dan Beat » Sun, 28 May 2000 04:00:00


Dick,

I am looking for basically the same as you. Let me know what you find
and/or decide. I have seen some really good scans from the more
expensive Umax Powerlook III on the web. A comparison between the 2200
and the PL III is found on this site:

http://www.image-acquire.com/review.shtml

I am told that the home use version of this machine is the Astra 4000u.
It is on sale here for $300, but the transparency adapter must be
ordered for around $150. I would be interested in comparing it with the
Epson 1200u, which has been reported here in this list as not a true
1200 PPI scanner.

The Astra 2200 has had many complaints about the software, but for the
price, it could be useful for small enlargements. Again, I wonder how if
fares against the Epson 1200u.

--
Dan Beaty
Columbus, Ohio

http://www.livingtruth.com

 
 
 

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by Dick La » Mon, 29 May 2000 04:00:00


hi Dan,
the suggestions I get so far is, go for drum scan. Which is not what I need.
First, it cost me too much in the long run, second I want to do my own job.
anyways, I check Cnet and other site, the review on the Epson 1600 and 1200
is very good. Umax, on the other hand, is not so lucky. You can check it out
here http://www.veryComputer.com/
If up need to get a Epson 1200, up have to get a 1200 Photo to get the
transparency adapter, but it only cost 100 bucks more than the 1200U.
Anyways. But for the 1600 photo, it really cost a lot.
At this point, I still don't know should I look for price or quality. For
price, I will go for 1200, for quality, I will go for 1600.

Dick

Quote:>*,

> I am looking for basically the same as you. Let me know what you find
> and/or decide. I have seen some really good scans from the more
> expensive Umax Powerlook III on the web. A comparison between the 2200
> and the PL III is found on this site:

> http://www.veryComputer.com/

> I am told that the home use version of this machine is the Astra 4000u.
> It is on sale here for $300, but the transparency adapter must be
> ordered for around $150. I would be interested in comparing it with the
> Epson 1200u, which has been reported here in this list as not a true
> 1200 PPI scanner.

> The Astra 2200 has had many complaints about the software, but for the
> price, it could be useful for small enlargements. Again, I wonder how if
> fares against the Epson 1200u.

> --
> Dan Beaty
> Columbus, Ohio

> http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by Joseph S. Wisniewsk » Mon, 29 May 2000 04:00:00



> hi,
> I am looking for a flatbed scanner for 120films both slide and negative.
> Just wondering which of the following is the best deal?

> Epson E 1600 Pro, it cost a lot...., Dmax 3.3 1600*3200dpi, powerful
> software, duo focus thing.

OK, easy math. You want to print to an Epson 1270. You're going to need
200dpi at the printer for a good print. You're doing medium format. If
you're 4.5cm x 6cm, that's 1.8in x 2.4in. Multiply by 1600dpi and divide
by 200dpi, and you can do a 14in x 19in print. Pretty much the limit of
the 1270.

If you're doing 6x7, then it's 19in x 22in, if you get some time on a
bigger printer.

Quote:> Epson 1200U, a third of the cost of 1600pro but the Dmax is only 3.0,
> 1200*2400dpi.

OK, your 4.5x6 is down to 11in x 14in, so you're really pushing the
scanner to it's limits
That 6x7 can do 14in x 17in

Quote:> Umax 2200, the cheapest, 600*1200dpi, Dmax unknown, should be less than 3,
> tons of software.

From a 4.5x6 negative, a 5in x 8in print. Might as well stick with the
local minilab.
From a 6x7, you can just barely get an 8in x 10in print.

Quote:> or do you have suggestion is not in my list?

I've never used a Microtek X12, but if it can live up with it's specs,
that's a real 1200dpi at a 3.6D, which sounds like a killer for medium
format. About $350, US. Sort of like an Agfa HID for 1/6 the price.
Again, that's assuming they can live up to their hype.

Quote:> I will mostly use the scanner for printing with my Epson 1270, so I mostly looking for
> quality with reasonable price.
> thanks for your help.

Hope this helps.

Joe

 
 
 

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by dj » Tue, 30 May 2000 04:00:00



Quote:> hi,
> I am looking for a flatbed scanner for 120films both slide and
negative.
> Just wondering which of the following is the best deal?

> Epson E 1600 Pro, it cost a lot...., Dmax 3.3 1600*3200dpi, powerful
> software, duo focus thing.

> Epson 1200U, a third of the cost of 1600pro but the Dmax is only
3.0,
> 1200*2400dpi.

> Umax 2200, the cheapest, 600*1200dpi, Dmax unknown, should be less
than 3,
> tons of software.

> or do you have suggestion is not in my list? I will mostly use the
scanner
> for printing with my Epson 1270, so I mostly looking for quality
with
> reasonable price.  thanks for your help.

LOW-END (600DPI CLASS) MF SCANNERS:

Umax 2200.  I have the Umax 1220S.  Same specs as the 2200.  It is a
small notch below the Epson 1200U in sharpness, noise, and shadow
performance.   In any case, the Epson 1200 is getting pretty low in
price these days and is a little better if one wants to try the
low-end.

Canon FS1200.  A "fake" 1200 dpi unit like the Epsons but similar in
quality.  Some claim it's better than the Epson 1200 although I
haven't seen any results to comment.  It's probably comparable.

Epson 1200.  I have this unit (you need the Photo version for film).
It is a very nice scanner and based on 35mm scanning I'd say you can
get a pleasing but quite soft 8x10 from MF.  It's a little weak in the
noise department, has a few radiometric problems above 600 dpi and of
course has the infamously overspec'd resolution weakness.  I know some
MF users that are satisfied but most would like something better.

MID-LEVEL (1200DPI CLASS) MF SCANNERS:

Epson 1600.  I've seen 8x10 printouts on an 870 that looked very good
although when viewed critically they are a little soft so I can't see
getting to 1270 sizes except for casual printing.   Better noise
performance than the 1200, more quality control complaints, and the
same dubious resolution specs as the 1200U.

Umax Powerlook III.  A true 1200 dpi and coming down in price.  Some
love it, others claim it has too much noise and poor shadow
performance compared to the Epson 1600.  I've seen very nice scans
from it on the Web.   Operator knowledge/skill seems to play a role in
getting good scans with this unit.

Canon FB1210.  A true 1200 dpi unit with 42 bit depth.  Released in
Japan at a fraction of the current Powerlook/Epson1600 prices.  Could
be a sleeper or could be a dud....too early to tell.

Umax 4000.  Another true 1200 dpi at a fraction of  the comparable
Powerlook or Epson 1600 units.  I've seen some results that are quite
poor but they were flawed due to operator skill so I'm still waiting
for good examples or an informed review.

Microtek X12USL.  Another true 1200 dpi scanner coming in at the new
price point for 1200 dpi scanners.  42 bit depth.   Microtek usually
makes good scanners.

Microtek Artix Scan 1100.   A true 1100 dpi flatbed/film scanner
combo.  Overpriced in my view.

Minolta Scan-Multi film scanner.  I've seen some great scans and
excellent 8x10 printouts from it.   A true film scanner it can expose
the RGB channels independently.  This is critical for maximum DMAX
performance with negatives.  A weakness with most flatbeds.

HIGH-END (>1200DPI) SCANNERS:

Agfa T2500.   A true 2500 dpi.  I see some very fussy users that are
effervescent about this scanner.  Never heard a complaint either so it
probably does the job.

The new Polaroid MF unit.   Somewhere around 2500 dpi as I recall.  In
any case, the price was so astronomical it blew my mind and I've
forgotten the model number...  :))

There are others but you'll need your Bank Manager shopping with
you...  :)

BOTTOMLINE:

The 2500 dpi class provides sharp full size printouts from the 1270.
The 1200 dpi class provides sharp 8x10s.  The bottom level is 600 dpi
which limits you to sharp 4x6s.   This is based on using these various
scanners...I haven't done the actual dpi calculations but I'm sure
it'll be close.

Of course passable results can be achieved for larger sizes.  The
suitability in that case depends totally on your individual
expectations and standards.

In any case, 1200 dpi seems to be the "magic number" for MF printing
for the average user.

IMHO, the new true 1200 dpi units from Canon, Umax and Microtek
probably represent the best quality at a reasonable price.   But it's
early days and we'll have to wait for the reports.

Cheers,
Byron
-
http://photoscope.homestead.com/files/photography.htm
Photo Resolution tests
Epson 1200U Tests, Examples and Homemade Transparency Adapter
The Truth About Scanner Resolution Specs
Canon FS2710 Film Scanner Examples

 
 
 

looking for a flatbed scanner for MF film.

Post by Dick La » Wed, 31 May 2000 04:00:00


Thanks Byron, your overview is very helpful. Hope I can manage to find the
right one.
take care
*



> > hi,
> > I am looking for a flatbed scanner for 120films both slide and
> negative.
> > Just wondering which of the following is the best deal?

> > Epson E 1600 Pro, it cost a lot...., Dmax 3.3 1600*3200dpi, powerful
> > software, duo focus thing.

> > Epson 1200U, a third of the cost of 1600pro but the Dmax is only
> 3.0,
> > 1200*2400dpi.

> > Umax 2200, the cheapest, 600*1200dpi, Dmax unknown, should be less
> than 3,
> > tons of software.

> > or do you have suggestion is not in my list? I will mostly use the
> scanner
> > for printing with my Epson 1270, so I mostly looking for quality
> with
> > reasonable price.  thanks for your help.

> LOW-END (600DPI CLASS) MF SCANNERS:

> Umax 2200.  I have the Umax 1220S.  Same specs as the 2200.  It is a
> small notch below the Epson 1200U in sharpness, noise, and shadow
> performance.   In any case, the Epson 1200 is getting pretty low in
> price these days and is a little better if one wants to try the
> low-end.

> Canon FS1200.  A "fake" 1200 dpi unit like the Epsons but similar in
> quality.  Some claim it's better than the Epson 1200 although I
> haven't seen any results to comment.  It's probably comparable.

> Epson 1200.  I have this unit (you need the Photo version for film).
> It is a very nice scanner and based on 35mm scanning I'd say you can
> get a pleasing but quite soft 8x10 from MF.  It's a little weak in the
> noise department, has a few radiometric problems above 600 dpi and of
> course has the infamously overspec'd resolution weakness.  I know some
> MF users that are satisfied but most would like something better.

> MID-LEVEL (1200DPI CLASS) MF SCANNERS:

> Epson 1600.  I've seen 8x10 printouts on an 870 that looked very good
> although when viewed critically they are a little soft so I can't see
> getting to 1270 sizes except for casual printing.   Better noise
> performance than the 1200, more quality control complaints, and the
> same dubious resolution specs as the 1200U.

> Umax Powerlook III.  A true 1200 dpi and coming down in price.  Some
> love it, others claim it has too much noise and poor shadow
> performance compared to the Epson 1600.  I've seen very nice scans
> from it on the Web.   Operator knowledge/skill seems to play a role in
> getting good scans with this unit.

> Canon FB1210.  A true 1200 dpi unit with 42 bit depth.  Released in
> Japan at a fraction of the current Powerlook/Epson1600 prices.  Could
> be a sleeper or could be a dud....too early to tell.

> Umax 4000.  Another true 1200 dpi at a fraction of  the comparable
> Powerlook or Epson 1600 units.  I've seen some results that are quite
> poor but they were flawed due to operator skill so I'm still waiting
> for good examples or an informed review.

> Microtek X12USL.  Another true 1200 dpi scanner coming in at the new
> price point for 1200 dpi scanners.  42 bit depth.   Microtek usually
> makes good scanners.

> Microtek Artix Scan 1100.   A true 1100 dpi flatbed/film scanner
> combo.  Overpriced in my view.

> Minolta Scan-Multi film scanner.  I've seen some great scans and
> excellent 8x10 printouts from it.   A true film scanner it can expose
> the RGB channels independently.  This is critical for maximum DMAX
> performance with negatives.  A weakness with most flatbeds.

> HIGH-END (>1200DPI) SCANNERS:

> Agfa T2500.   A true 2500 dpi.  I see some very fussy users that are
> effervescent about this scanner.  Never heard a complaint either so it
> probably does the job.

> The new Polaroid MF unit.   Somewhere around 2500 dpi as I recall.  In
> any case, the price was so astronomical it blew my mind and I've
> forgotten the model number...  :))

> There are others but you'll need your Bank Manager shopping with
> you...  :)

> BOTTOMLINE:

> The 2500 dpi class provides sharp full size printouts from the 1270.
> The 1200 dpi class provides sharp 8x10s.  The bottom level is 600 dpi
> which limits you to sharp 4x6s.   This is based on using these various
> scanners...I haven't done the actual dpi calculations but I'm sure
> it'll be close.

> Of course passable results can be achieved for larger sizes.  The
> suitability in that case depends totally on your individual
> expectations and standards.

> In any case, 1200 dpi seems to be the "magic number" for MF printing
> for the average user.

> IMHO, the new true 1200 dpi units from Canon, Umax and Microtek
> probably represent the best quality at a reasonable price.   But it's
> early days and we'll have to wait for the reports.

> Cheers,
> Byron
> -
> http://www.veryComputer.com/
> Photo Resolution tests
> Epson 1200U Tests, Examples and Homemade Transparency Adapter
> The Truth About Scanner Resolution Specs
> Canon FS2710 Film Scanner Examples