Prev: Comments on the cost of Nikon scanners
Next: Red Streaks on scanning
From: Noons on 9 Mar 2010 04:29
il barbi wrote,on my timestamp of 9/03/2010 12:24 AM:
> I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
> reality as cameras, for instance:
> http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria.aspx?id=22&f=-nikon&sort=Prodotto at the
> right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand the
> devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90 (1800
> dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints, 1800
> dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
> I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
> attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
> understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
> the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
> acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail in
> shadows" or "false colours" and so on
> what do you think about?
> il barbi



Don't waste neither time nor money on these.
From: CSM1 on 9 Mar 2010 20:03
jrg <connyank(a)cox.net> wrote in news:q%iln.8516$NH1.5706(a)newsfe14.iad:

> On 03/08/2010 10:36 AM Nigel Feltham scribbled:
>
> <snip>
>
>> However here's one example of what others think of this type of
>> scanner, you'll notice most of the reviews are very negative if you
>> excuse the pun.
>>
>> http://www.brookstone.com/sl/reviews/35827-review-iconvert-slide-
negat
>> ive- scanner.html
>
> no problem scusing the pun - I don't doubt you but the reviews -on
> Brookstone's site - aren't as bad as you implied, whether they should
> be or not.
> Funny, the wif got me one of these for xmas but I am strictly linux so
> it was a no go. In trying to get it to fly, I found out it is made by
> plustek. Contacted company, no interest in supporting linux so thing
> went back to store.

Even $200 Flatbed scanners that have Film scanning ability do a good job
of scanning 35mm film.

Not as good as a $1500 Nikon Film Scanner.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
From: Barry Watzman on 10 Mar 2010 16:16
Or a $300 Nikon scanner (LS-2000 or LS-30, but cleaned and working).

CSM1 wrote:
>
> Even $200 Flatbed scanners that have Film scanning ability do a good job
> of scanning 35mm film.
>
> Not as good as a $1500 Nikon Film Scanner.
>
From: il barbi on 12 Mar 2010 03:42
"il barbi" <angeieri.barboggi(a)ngi.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:hn2vja$pkv$1(a)nnrp.ngi.it...
>I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
>reality as cameras, for instance:
>
Thanks to all for your valuable answers, actually I asked the question but I
already knew the answer...:-)
Anyway the reason for these devices is quite strong, that is the time of
performance being as short as few seconds. Indeed many people, like me,
don't want to pass the rest of their life in scanning the thousands of
slides & negative shooted in the past years... Do you think there will ever
be a substantial improvement in time performance with todays scanner
technology?
il barbi


From: Ivan on 12 Mar 2010 11:05
On Mar 12, 3:42 am, "il barbi" <angeieri.barbo...(a)ngi.it> wrote:
> "il barbi" <angeieri.barbo...(a)ngi.it> ha scritto nel messaggionews:hn2vja$pkv$1(a)nnrp.ngi.it...>I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
> >reality as cameras, for instance:
>
> Thanks to all for your valuable answers, actually I asked the question but I
> already knew the answer...:-)
> Anyway the reason for these devices is quite strong, that is the time of
> performance being as short as few seconds. Indeed many people, like me,
> don't want to pass the rest of their life in scanning the thousands of
> slides & negative shooted in the past years... Do you think there will ever
> be a substantial improvement in time performance with todays scanner
> technology?
> il barbi

The reason the cheap scanners are so fast is that they don't scan,
near as I can tell, but simply photograph the slide or neg with a
camera-type sensor. Since high-resolution (10-15 MP) sensors are
already in relatively inexpensive cameras, and 20-MP or higher sensors
are available, I think higher resolution for these one-snap scanners
is bound to come. Noise at low light levels, the bugbear of hi-res
sensors, should not be a problem because the scanner would provide its
own light, which could be made bright enough. That still calls for
good electronics and good optics, but digital electronics keep coming
down in price and, though flat-field optics aren't cheap, at least the
designers of scanner lenses don't have to worry about zoom or
maintaining focus over a wide range of distances. And one could keep
the cost down by using lenses with known aberrations that could be
corrected digitally. I don't know, however, what useful extras like
Digital ICE would contribute to the cost.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Comments on the cost of Nikon scanners
Next: Red Streaks on scanning