clayne
shoot film or die
Basically what you said is correct but I'd like to add that oversampling is indeed beneficial. In fact it could be argued that the AD side of things should sample at twice or higher the optical limits. Not sure if there's a direct Nyquist link however.
rawhead
Established
Sure, it won't have any problems selling at $2K... to those people who are willing to pay 3-4K for a used, uninsured 9000ED.
Will it sell like hotcakes to the rest of us, though?
Like I've said in this thread a couple times, it would have to perform above and beyond what the 9000ED can do for me to plunk down the kind of money that would've purchased me a 90000ED *new* 7 years ago.
useless generation
Established
Like in the plustek 7600. I scan at the full 7200dpi then resize back down. I think the true dpi was tested at around 3200dpi IF you scan at full resolution. If you scan at 3200dpi you would have much less detail. This would be the same case for the 120. I'm very impressed with my 7600 and the amount of detail you could get with a 35mm negative. I look foward to seeing the plustek 120
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The success of this scanner will be aligned with the continued success of 120 film which has had some trimming of late. No more 220 black and white and a few emulsions have gone by the wayside which is a pain because for me 120 film is unique. Digital can't touch it for tonal range and detail and if you're serious about film use medium format is a no brainer if your intent is even remotely artistic and want that detail in your images. 135 just doesn't cut it IMO!
But you need a very good scanner to bring out it's true qualities ... so whatever the end price it's OK by me as long as it's not stupid! (read Leica)
Also Plustek will be entering a declining market technically ... so that will be a large factor in the end price.
But you need a very good scanner to bring out it's true qualities ... so whatever the end price it's OK by me as long as it's not stupid! (read Leica)
Also Plustek will be entering a declining market technically ... so that will be a large factor in the end price.
Aristophanes
Well-known
But the demand has gone down, not up.
Otherwise, Nikon would sill be making its models.
And there would have been no 5 year gap between companies making similar products.
I have seen pros get stunning results time and again from the Epson V750.
I would venture to say that Nikon's idea of sufficient volume and Plustek's idea are two entirely different things. 
Plustek has a full line of scanners (not just film) so they probably have a good handle on the market.
The Epson is quite good...for a flat bed.
Plustek has a full line of scanners (not just film) so they probably have a good handle on the market.The Epson is quite good...for a flat bed.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
In the meantime I've just placed an order at Better Scanning for the adjustable height MF holder and two glass inserts for my Epson. The V700 does a very good job with MF in my opinion but trying to achieve film flatness lately has been driving me crazy!
Argenticien
Dave
I'm having trouble with this statement. If your'e in USA, it looks like the same "kind of money" today is worth about 15% less than it was seven years ago (such as, US$2000 today has equivalent buying power of US$1700 in 2005) per the CPI inflation calculator. (Using an analogous online calculator, I find fairly similar for GBP.) So if by paying the same nominal dollars I'm paying 15% less in real dollars, and I get a seven years younger scanner with similar functionality, current operating system compatibility, etc., how isn't that a win?
--Dave
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Those inflation calculators should be taken with a grain of salt. Some things have increased in price a lot from 2005 to now, some have dropped in price and some have stayed the same. Wages, generally, have fallen a bit in the USA, and that makes paying for this stuff much harder for most people.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Keith, have you tried just laying the negative, emulsion-side down,
directly on the flatbed scanner glass? I do that, and weigh down the
negative with coins to hold it flat. It's far easier than messing about
with negative holders. I've been doing this for years and it's always
given me great results.
david.elliott
Well-known
Do you do this on the v700 or one of the other models? Thanks.
billkoe
Newbie
Keep in mind that in so doing you can only use the scanner lens with the lower resolution. The higher scanner resolution is available only with the use of film holders including the wet mount device.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
On the 4990, and on the 3200 and 2450 before that.
Why? I don't have a V700 so I'm not sure of the reasoning
here. On the 2450 and the 3200, the scanner would look for
a notch at the top of the film holder, to know what sort of
media was being scanned -- if the scanner did not recognize
a notch, it assumed it was scanning reflective media and
turned off the transparency light. The workaround for this
was to replicate the notch for the negative holder with a
cardboard strip, and to lay it across the top of the scanner
glass to trick the scanner into thinking a holder was in place.
At least with the 2450/3200/4990 Epsons, the DOF for the
scanning lens was sufficiently deep to make differences in
focus distance negligible. In fact, I've found the scans to be
superior without the holder because the negative lies flatter
without it. And the negative may be scanned from rebate to
rebate without need of cropping.
The only caveat is that really thin negatives can be hard
to scan this way because the substrate comes into contact
with the scanner glass and creates Newton rings in the
final scan -- another good reason for overexposing a stop.
david.elliott
Well-known
Thanks Sanders. I'll give that a try on my v500 and see how it goes.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I did scan some negs this way recently Sanders and I was impressed at the sharpness ... it was for my home grown pano with an old MF Voigtlander Brilliant ... and some sticky tape!
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I did scan some negs this way recently Sanders and I was impressed at the sharpness ... it was for my home grown pano with an old MF Voigtlander Brilliant ... and some sticky tape!
Never underestimate the value of cellotape in the darkroom!
When I was processing 5x7 sheets all the time, I would tape
two sheets together on the long edge to make one 7x10 piece
of film, and process them together in a Jobo tank intended for
processing 8x10 negatives. It took some extra time to clear
the negatives at the end -- the tape blocked the antihalation
layer underneath from dissipating in the fix. But it was worth
washing the negatives for an extra 30 minutes, to be able to
process ten 5x7s in a five-sheet Jobo 3005. Bliss!
Gerry M
Gerry
Sanders,
I just scanned a 6X6 neg w/o film holder. Wow. That works for me. I had been using the Epson holder with non-reflective glass that I had cut by a frame shop. I have not been happy with that. I used to have a V500 w/ BetterScanning holder & ANR glass. It did quite well, but this scan I just did w/o film holder is just super.
Do you use some kind of heavy paper mask to position the negs?
I just scanned a 6X6 neg w/o film holder. Wow. That works for me. I had been using the Epson holder with non-reflective glass that I had cut by a frame shop. I have not been happy with that. I used to have a V500 w/ BetterScanning holder & ANR glass. It did quite well, but this scan I just did w/o film holder is just super.
Do you use some kind of heavy paper mask to position the negs?
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Nope. I started out using a mask cut from matte board.
But over time I found that it added nothing to the process.
If your negatives have a lot of curl in them, you need to
figure out a way to flatten them. I've used heavy coins,
carefully laid at the corners to hold the negative flat while
not intruding into the scanning area. I used to overlay the
negative with a sheet of anti-Newton glass but that introduces
two new surfaces to attract dust and I preferred not to put
additional material in the light path.
I've been scanning this way for almost a decade now, on
4-5 different Epson flatbeds, and I've always been happy
with the results. (I used the 3200 and the 4990 to scan
all of my images posted at www.flickr.com/sandersnyc
with the negatives laid on the glass.) Maybe it's why I'm
happy with the older Epsons, when so many in this thread
have trashed them.
Sanders
