Re: [photo-3d] Re: Fw: Scanner

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 13/2/2001 2:47:48 pm, Dave Kesner wrote:

<< Gabriel Jacob writes:

> I'm interested mainly in scanning 2x2 slides and negative film. If
> the 1640 is comparable to the HP, Minolta, etc. entry level film
> scanners then I think the Epson 1640 extra features would be a good
> choice. Is there a big difference?

Once again, I have never used a dedicated film scanner. I can 
tell you that the Epson does an excellent job on film scans 
when the final output is either web-based applications or 
print (3.5x7 Holmes type up to 8x10) with either a home photo-
quality inkjet or digital print on the new Fuji Frontier 
machine. I have not tried (nor will I probaly ever try) output 
to a film recorder.>>

Well, I am outputting to a film recorder, as well as printing to an Epson 
Photo 700.

I have a polaroid SS4000 (4000 DPI Film scanner) and an Epson Perfection 1640 
SU Photo.

I plan to use the Epson for medium format transparency scans, and initial 
results are encouraging - when I can get the thing to work! I'm using VueScan 
software for the scanning (download a trial version first from 
www.hamrick.com. Registration $40, unlimited updates).

On the face of it, the Epson's 1600 DPI resolution should give enough pixels 
from a 35mm fram for re-output to film (about 1600 x1600 pixels from a 
Realist format sllde) but only just! My film recorder (Agfa PCR II) uses a 
DPI resolution of about 2700, so the Epson isn't optimal, but not bad.

Unfortunately, the Epson isn't s true 1600 DPI. It uses two 800 DPI sensor 
banks, offset by half a pixel, so it's much more like the 2400 pixels of the 
"1200 x 2400" type of rating that a lot of scanner manufacturers quote where 
the higher figure is achieved by use of a finer pitch stepper motor...

Anyway, I'll do sme tests and report back, but probably not before next week.

In the meantime, my advice for someone wanting to scan film would be to use a 
film scanner...

Bob Aldridge