Re: [photo-3d] Slide Scanner

[Bob Aldridge <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 23/3/2001 10:34 am, -rvh wrote:


> I eventually ended up with an Epson 1240u with the transparency
> adapter.  It cost about $100 more, and the resolution is not as
> high, but I think that the scan quality is a step up.  I am less than
> satisfied - the same scanner which does a superb job doing a
> reflective scan does a mediocre job on a transparency scan.  I
> think that it is a hardware issue; it must be more difficult to do,
> though I have not tried a high end film scanner

The "best" scanner for any particular scanner depends largely on that
application! 

If I am scanning images for the internet (about 72 DPI at the finished size)
my requirements will be different than if I am scanning for output to my
film scanner (about 2900 DPI). Of course, the key is the number of pixels
required in the final image.

So a stereo pair on screen for parallel viewing will be about 2.5 inches
wide (per chip) at 72 DPI = 180 pixels, and so wouldn't present a problem to
a 1200 DPI flatbed from a Realist slide (.83 inch x 1200 DPI = 996) and the
same scan would print well on an inkjet (240 DPI x 2.5 inches = 600 pixels)
but would be less than optimal on the film recorder which needs 2400
pixels... 

Which is why I use my Polaroid 4000 DPI scanner which gives me 3320 pixels
from the width of a Realist camera chip. Hey - I can even crop it a bit!

As with everything, it's horses for courses. Just decide what your highest
pixel requirement will be before you buy an 1800 DPI film scanner - it may
not be enough!

Bob Aldridge


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/