[plug] scanners

[anderson]

Craig Ringer wrote:

> Ben Jensz wrote:
>
>> The other choice you've got is that you can use Vuescan 
>> (http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/) if your scanner isn't supported 
>> under Linux by sane.  Vuescan has versions for Windows, OS/X and 
>> Linux.  There is a list of scanners supported (and unsupported) by 
>> Vuescan here:  http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#supported
>>
>> Also, as a side note..  flatbed scanners with film scanning 
>> capabilities aren't all that fantastic really.
>
>
> I would go so far as "remarkably poor" for most of them. Cheap 
> scanners often claim 1200dpi or more, but they can't always actually 
> resolve that level of detail - they can capture it, but it's often 
> blurry so you aren't getting a "real" result much better than 300 or 
> 600 dpi. Much like with digital cameras, a high resolution CCD is far 
> from the only thing required for a good image. Interlacing exacerbates 
> that issue further. Detail issues that may be acceptable for scanning 
> 15x10 prints will quickly become a serious problem for scanning 35mm 
> slides, so be careful.
>
> When it comes to colour, be aware that the key measure is not bit 
> depth but dynamic range. Dynamic range is essentially the difference 
> between the darkest and lightest colours the scanner can "see" in the 
> same image. Bigger is better. It ranges from 0 to 4 - any dynamic 
> range quotes greater than 4 (and some under, unfortunately) are using 
> a dodgy marketing trick that calculates a "theoretical maximum" 
> dynamic range rather than measuring the scanner's actual performance. 
> We all know what meaning "theoretical maximum" has in computing - 
> 802.11G or USB2 anybody?
>
> Getting the real measured dynamic range out of a scanner vendor can be 
> like wringing blood from a rock. If you can manage it, though, it's 
> very good information to have.
>
> If you buy a flatbed scanner, especially one with transparency 
> scanning, test it at the shop if at all possible. If you have a 
> scanner calibration target, definitely bring it along and use it, as 
> well as a couple of photos and/or slides, to compare. Check for colour 
> fidelity, dynamic range, and blurring at high detail levels.
>
> I'm also going to warn you away from the MicroTek 8700. It's a very 
> inferior scanner, especially for the price.
>
> If speed and detailed control isn't an issue, I've seen some 
> incredible results from even very cheap consumer scanners. Test 
> carefully and you'll probably come away with a winner.
>
> > If you're going to be doing a lot of
>
>> scanning of (35mm) negative and/or colour reversal film on a regular 
>> basis, you might want to possibly look at getting a dedicated film 
>> scanner.  You can pick up low-end ones for around $500-600 new.
>
>
> Not that they're all that super either, at least the cheap ones. The 
> POST had an older Nikon model that gave even worse results than a 
> flatbed. On the other hand, I have seen some spectacular results from 
> even cheaper newer models, so YMMV.
>
> -- 
> Craig Ringer
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
>
> .
>
Craig,Ben,Bernard,Gary,

Your thought's on scanners is of great help.

Craig's thoughts particularly, should you be able to test the product
 before purchasing it.

 Once the film has been scanned some maniputation is required say by
 Gimp.

 Once again thanks

 Laurie