 Gary Wonning |
Coping Slides I have a lot of 35 MM slides that I want to copy to CD, does anyone have any experience with the Microtek i800? Thanks: Gary
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Microtek scanners used to be made by Polaroid, and they were less expensive that those of Minolta and Nikon. Your inquiry is not quite clear - Are you looking for "opinions" on Microtek, or are you seeking some "how-to" advice? Michael H. Cothran
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gary Wonning |
Hi: Sorry, I am seeking opinions on the quality of the copies that can be achieved using Microtek. I would like to have copies that I could reproduce 8X10 or larger prints. How does the quality compare to the Nikon slide scanners? Thanks: Gary Wonning
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Different horses for different courses. If you wanted a very high quality 35mm film scanner, you would be better off with a true drum scanner as with Nikon's better models. Most will easily outperform a flatbed attempting to scan a small 35mm transparency. If you wanted to scan 8x10 prints directly, or to scan larger format film transparencies or negatives that will not fit a 35mm drum scanner, a good flatbed scanner might be want you need. There are a number of people on photo.net using Microtek scanners and scanning wet-mounted 4x5" large format transparencies with good results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Gary, With all due respect to Will, his information is somewhat erroneous, if not misleading, in his reference to DRUM SCANNERS. First, Nikon does not make a drum scanner, nor does any other consumer brand. Their scanners are all CCD scanners - NOT drum scanners. Drum scanners, indeed, do provide the best possible scans available, but are extremely expensive, and usually only affordable by professional photo labs, and not by consumers. Aztec makes one of the more affordable drum scanners. You could possibly trade in your new Suburban for one. Do a Google on film scanners and drum scanners and read up about drum and CCD scanners. As far as consumer CCD scanners go, I am an advocate of the Nikon line of CCD scanners. They are affordable, ranging from a few hundred dollars for a quality 35mm film scanner to the top-of-the-line LS-9000 ED (which I own and use). The LS-9000 ED sells for about $1800, and will scan 35mm and 120 film @ 4000 ppi. Look at the latest three images in my gallery - all scanned with the Nikon LS-9000 ED (CCD) scanner. There is only one scanner available for the consumer that is better than Nikon's (in my opinion), and that is the Imacon line (owned by Hasselblad). However, they currently produce four CCD scanners (which sadly, they tout as "virtual drum" scanners, but again, are really NOT drum scanners, but CCD scanners). They tout "virtual" because the film is wound on a drum, but the process is that of CCD's. The prices of the Imacon scanners begin @ $5000, and proceed to $20,000. Too much for mortals like myself. If you only intend to scan 35mm film, Nikon makes a line of Coolscans that begin for just a few hundred dollars, as does the line made by Konica Minolta. Either would be preferred by me over Microtek.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gary Wonning |
Thanks for the great information, I appreciate it!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Misleading? Don't you feel that's a bit strong Michael? I am only guilty of using the generic term 'drum scanner', along with about 1,000,000 other photographers to describe the Nikon Coolscan line. But my information on relative quality is correct, as you've indicated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||