SebC
Established
I’ve been looking at picking up a fairly cheap 35mm film scanner. I have, of course, been investigating the Plustek range, as there is very little else in that price range (and I use a Mac mini, so no SCSI, no PC-only hardware, very limited driver support for older bits of kit). Between the 7300 and 7400 specs there is very little different – then only notable change is the 7300 uses a cold cathode light source, and the 7400 a white led.
I understand the theoretical advantages of an LED light source – no warm up time, lower energy consumption, no lamp dimming over time. But I understand that LEDs are a very highly collimated light source and can really emphasise any blemishes and scratches on the film. So my first question is, based purely on the light sources, would you expect the cold-cathode 7300 to render better scans than the newer and more expensive LED-based 7400?
Secondly, does anybody have any real-world comparisons between the two? I’ve found plenty of Plustek scan examples – but unless it’s the same frame of film and the same operator it’s very hard to make any comparisons.
Many thanks,
Seb
I understand the theoretical advantages of an LED light source – no warm up time, lower energy consumption, no lamp dimming over time. But I understand that LEDs are a very highly collimated light source and can really emphasise any blemishes and scratches on the film. So my first question is, based purely on the light sources, would you expect the cold-cathode 7300 to render better scans than the newer and more expensive LED-based 7400?
Secondly, does anybody have any real-world comparisons between the two? I’ve found plenty of Plustek scan examples – but unless it’s the same frame of film and the same operator it’s very hard to make any comparisons.
Many thanks,
Seb
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I use the 7500 (because it's the only mac supported scanner as far as I can tell) and yes, it does scan every scratch and defect on your film.
If you process your own, it's fine, no problems, if you give it to a lab (pro or not) you will notice how badly they treat your film.
Otherwise I'm quite happy. Besides scanner, film makes a huge difference. Foma scans like a dream compared to Arista Premium & Adox. APX scans nicely too, but I'm blown away by Foma on that scanner.
If you process your own, it's fine, no problems, if you give it to a lab (pro or not) you will notice how badly they treat your film.
Otherwise I'm quite happy. Besides scanner, film makes a huge difference. Foma scans like a dream compared to Arista Premium & Adox. APX scans nicely too, but I'm blown away by Foma on that scanner.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The debate about diffuse vs. collimated enlarger heads started a hundred years ago, and hasn't finished yet. In other words, it is a matter of taste - there are good arguments for either...
Sevo
SebC
Established
On the website comparison table it says that the 7300, 7400, 7500 and 7600 are Mac compatible (so only the 7200 and derivatives are not).
The difference in cost is ~£30-50 depending on where I buy from. Decisions...
The difference in cost is ~£30-50 depending on where I buy from. Decisions...