I'm impressed. I just set this puppy and and immedaitely ran a few test scans -
transparancies, color negatives and black and white. Outstanding !!! I can see
though where a program like VueScan would be a nnecessity. I'll get better
with this scanning thing as I gain experience with the software but thus far
the screen images of the negatives and transparencies are excellent !!!! The
real proof though would be when I output them to a printer.

Thanks for all the input folks that helped me decide on this scanner.

david N.

How good is the focus? I'm thinking about using this scanner for
digitizing 35mm negatives. Is there a way to adjust the focus manually?
--
David Arnstein arnstein+usenet@pobox.com
--
Spammers: thank you for training my filters. You are all doing a
wonderful job. Keep up the good work!

No, this scanner does not actively focus but relies on a relatively large
depth of field. If your just going to use this for 35 mm and don't have a
need to scan medium format or larger film, you would be happier if you
invest in a dedicated film scanner. Look at the Minolta Dual Scan IV (or
III on closeout) if you are on a budget.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...lderintro.html

Focus seems to be fine with the supplied media holders. There is no
independent means of focusing with this scanner.

I've only scanned a few B & W 35 mm negatives mounted in slide holders and a
three - four 35 mm transparancies thus far. Short of a drum scan, I could ask
for anything more of a scanner. With the proper printer these scans should
produce Gallary quality FA prints.

As I've said before I am a tyro when it comes to scanning and things digital.
So I'm only judging things from the basis of 40 years experience as primarily a
B & W photographer and wet darkroom guy.

I'll probably never go completely digital. I simply have too much invested in
my NIkon and Hassy gear. I process my own film in a Jobo film processor so I
have complete control. So just consider me half digital please? <g>

Thanks again

David N

I have such a need although 85% of 20,000 plus images are 35mm. As I said I'm a
digital tyro here but the B & W 35mm scans were outstanding.

I balked at going out and buying separate scanners - one exclusively for
slides, the otehr for everything else. Thus far this one does them both very
well indeed. Anything better and I'll get the images drim scanned.

Be well.

David N.

David Napierkowski, <focaipoint@aol.com> à écrit :
Me too !

The 4870 gives great result for 6x6 scanning ?

--�
-- Daniel Rocha <> Photographie --
http://www.monochromatique.com

Excellennt results

On 05 Mar 2004 13:35:34 GMT, focaipoint@aol.com (David Napierkowski)
wrote:



It's a perfectly reasonable approach.

OTOH, I've had plenty fun with my 10D, on
vacation -- being able to review the day's
photos on the laptop. Or hiking with my G2,
and being able to share the day's photos at
a lean-to with other hikers.

Film is still a fuss and a bother, but there's
a lot of information there, particularly in the
larger formats.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The great advantage of digital is its immediacy. You get instant feedback and
is great for *show and tell* at the basic level. But you see I ahve it figured
out. if a get that Nikon digital I've been thinking about, I'd also have to get
some extra memory and that darn laptop. I already have too much gear and that
for me gets in the way of actually making images. LOL.

Take care.

David N.

David

On 06 Mar 2004 05:03:37 GMT, focaipoint@aol.com (David Napierkowski)
wrote:


10D images are actually quite small compared
to even 35 mm film scans.

10D (tiff) = 18 Mbytes
35 mm film scan @4000 dpi = 55 Mbytes
645 film scan @4000 dpi = 160 Mbytes
4x5 film scan @2500 dpi = 300+ Mbytes


But hey, memory is cheap nowadays.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com