andybarton Posted October 6, 2011 Share #21 Posted October 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The rates quoted in the PDF you linked to are PER ROLL, not in total. Please take everyone's advice in good spirit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Hi andybarton, Take a look here Scans. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted October 6, 2011 Share #22 Posted October 6, 2011 Okay, nobody seem to understand that it will be the same price whether I give them 41 negatives or 410 or 1000... No it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 7, 2011 Share #23 Posted October 7, 2011 I had slide films scanned for years at a reasonable price for 18MB scans. It is always cheaper per image to have them scanned at the same time as processing -- but only if you need each one scanned. It may be better to select which ones you really need then have them scanned. Large size top quality scans are always more expensive. RAW scans will be cheaper. My scans used to be done with a Noritsu scanner and early on the quality was excellent; I was not so happy with the quality of later scans. That lab is no longer there. Prices vary considerably, so shop around! I tried a Canoscan 9000F but was not pleased with the results. Still, if I decide to do a lot more scanning in future I would still look at doing it myself and buying a film scanner. This may well be a worthwhile option for you. As far as size and quality goes, as a rough indicator 18MB is good for pictures slightly larger than A4. For larger prints you need about 40-50MB. Prints for magazines are at 300dpi and for newspapers at 200dpi. Select both options on your printer and compare the results. So much depends on printer quality and paper, not just theory and data! There are lots of variables. For resizing and sharing on your computer of course, you need to reduce the size. Hope this helps, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted October 9, 2011 Share #24 Posted October 9, 2011 You get what you pay for. All they are doing is ploy them on a flatbed scanner and scan as if it were picture. Flat beds never deliver the resolution claimed. If you just want a reference index, this seems ok. If you want to make good prints, I would find the unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 9, 2011 Share #25 Posted October 9, 2011 Flat beds never deliver the resolution claimed. Maybe but there's a world of difference between the flatbeds that consumers/prosumers have been buying for years and the pre-press quality flatbeds like Scitex scanners which, provided they are operated by someone who knows what they are doing, deliver superb quality scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MX5Bob Posted October 13, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 13, 2011 Flat beds never deliver the resolution claimed. That's a rather broad statement. Any independent tests to back that up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted October 13, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Flat beds never deliver the resolution claimed. I'm not sure why one would make that claim. The drum diameter limits the size of the original media that can be used on a drum scanner. A flatbed is necessary for larger media. If you're batch scanning (for economy) multiple negatives that cannot wrap around the drum diameter, then you use the flatbed. Aside from that, the flatbed is equally capable of producing extraordinary scans. In fact, flatbeds (Cruse, Kodak CreoScitex ) tend to be more up-to-date technologically speaking since the industry still has a viable reason to invest in flatbed technology. Scanning of larger media is very much in demand (esp by museums and high end pre-press work) whereas the demand for film scanning alone has dropped. Any high end atelier (such as Laumont Studio Laumont Photographics : Services Overview or Lumiere Editions Lumiere Editions will employ both flatbed and drum scanning and produce extraordinary results. I'm trained in using both a PMT type Aztec (Howtek) drum scanner and a grand format German made Cruse flatbed. The quality of the scan comes from: 1) the scanner's capabilities/parameters 2) the skill of the operator 3) the quality of software If you are discussing consumer flatbeds then maybe so, but the same should be said of consumer CCD film scanners (including the Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight which is also a basic CCD scanner.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holydiver Posted October 17, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 17, 2011 I am a trained technician and have worked on and resold both the small-medium and large format drum scanners as well as the Fuji, Screen and Scitex/Creo/Kodak lines of flatbed scanners. While some of the best densities and resolutions come historically from drum scanners, I can say that today's high-end flatbed scanners can hold their own to the drum technology. The Eversmart Supreme scanner, for instance, can actually capture a true optical resolution of 5600 dpi with a 4.3 d-max, which is quite impressive considering it can accomplish this over the entire 12" x17" bed size. There was mention that these flatbeds scanners were designed for the prepress industry, which is correct. However, they are seeking new found homes in the photography markets. These refurbished flatbed scanners are now at a price point that is palatable for the photo industry. In the case of the EverSmart and IQSmart family of scanners, the newer software allows users to scan to a RAW data format, 8-bit RGB, 16-bit RGB, grayscale or CMYK. You can also batch scan, but not in the traditional sense. The oXYgen software, in the case of the Eversmart and iQSmart scanners, allows the scans to be captured individually and named to a specified naming convention. As each original is scanned, the user can immediately begin working on the file without the need for the scanner to complete the batch. Productivity definitely goes to the high-end flatbeds over drum scanners; there is no need for offline mounting or to mess with oil (unless marred originals call for it). If anyone would like a sample from an EverSmart or iQSmart series scanner, let me know. The results are impressive. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.