[rollei_list] Re: Scanners
- From: "Stephen Attaway" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:36:26 -0800
Hi Frank:
Depends on what you mean by 'a long time'.
My new this year computer drives my 8000 flat out. I did some scans last night
and it took about 9 minutes for a 120 transparency, digital ice on, super fine
scan, 14 bits. I usually do 3-4 transparencies a session, which takes care of 1
roll of 120 film.
Negatives take about 50% longer.
My flatbed with digital ice on takes nearly 1/2 hour to scan 1 transparency...
Stephen Attaway
From: Frank Dernie
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:27 AM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Scanners
I use a Nikon Coolscan 8000. It produces excellent results but it takes me a
long time, but I think that is me not the scanner...
I have tried a flatbed but it was not as good, despite the specs. Not
surprising I suppose since the optics on the Nikon are optimised for a much
narrower scanning width.
The replacement Coolscan 9000, which is presumably better is holding its price
well, so if you want the extra quality it is probably still 3 to 4x more
expensive than a flatbed.
FD
On 21 Nov, 2009, at 17:57, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
<ksteels@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
I would like to advice on what scanner would be a good choice for scanning
negatives, 35mm and medium format, as well as slides.
Ken
Other related posts:
