Nikon Coolscan vs. Epson Perfection scanners - recommendations?
in [Scanners]
|
From: Local Girl on 30 Nov 2009 10:14 Thank you to all for your knowledgeable comments. What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page: http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE:CKIE:home+ These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to $800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments? -LG ................................................................. Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
From: - on 30 Nov 2009 10:47 > I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works > properly > with that film - can anyone confirm this? It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are people who say they have had good success with it. Doug -- www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa, Microtek and Epson Scanners
From: Charlie Hoffpauir on 30 Nov 2009 11:54 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:14:01 -0500, Local Girl <anon(a)anon.com> wrote: >Thank you to all for your knowledgeable comments. > >What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page: >http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE:CKIE:home+ > >These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to >$800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments? > I have no personal knowledge about PrimeFilm scanners.... but considering the prices, I'd say they must be more cheaply made than either the Nikons or the Epsons. I'd recommend you check a few comments from past users. Usually you can find users comments on sites that retail the products.... check Amazon first , and if they don't handle them. do a goggle search for sites that sell the PrimeFilm.
From: Alan Wrigley on 30 Nov 2009 13:09 " -" <xvvvz(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works > > properly > > with that film - can anyone confirm this? > > It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced > version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is > programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never > seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are > people who say they have had good success with it. Would be interesting to hear from one of them if reading this group. Spotting Kodachromes after scanning is the most time-consuming (and probably health-destroying) part of my life. Alan
From: Surfer! on 30 Nov 2009 13:39
In message <6ut7h5lf9a3gvhinngv0l29scf6c8vrk41(a)4ax.com>, Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid(a)invalid.com> writes >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:14:01 -0500, Local Girl <anon(a)anon.com> wrote: > >>Thank you to all for your knowledgeable comments. >> >>What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page: >>http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE >>:CKIE:home+ >> >>These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to >>$800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments? >> > >I have no personal knowledge about PrimeFilm scanners.... but >considering the prices, I'd say they must be more cheaply made than >either the Nikons or the Epsons. I'd recommend you check a few >comments from past users. Usually you can find users comments on sites >that retail the products.... check Amazon first , and if they don't >handle them. do a goggle search for sites that sell the PrimeFilm. User's comments about products are often not very useful, unlike their comments about suppliers. They don't have anything to compare the product with, and are not measuring it's performance objectively. -- Surfer! |