[Nobody]

I need some help. I have been in the market for a new scanner or even a flatbed and a film scanner for my photo work.

The problem that I am running into is as follows:

Scanners with 1600 x 3200, 48bit cost more than a scanner with 2400 x 4800, 48 bit.

I guess what I am asking, is why do the high end scanners have lower scan numbers than the cheaper (6 times less) scanner?

They both have USB and Firewire.

My business is starting to take off and I need something better than what I have now for a scanner.

Thanks for any replies.

Ron

[Nobody]

Some of the lower-end scanners do have higher optical resolution, but still might not give you the best or the fastest scan. They might come with lesser bundles. Also, some of the more established pro scanners don't have to play the 'bigger' resolution game, especially if they've proven themselves over time.

It really depends on what you need, or, what the intended use is for. Resolution isn't everything - color fidelity, scanner driver, speed are just as important.

If you're planning on scanning 35mm negatives and slides, with the intent of using them in print, or printed at significantly larger sizes, then you really should look at a film scanner. You'll get better scans of your stuff than with a flatbed & a transparency adapter, unless you're planning on spending a lot of $$. Nikon's stuff is pretty good, and it really depends on how much you are willing to spend.

If you shoot primarily medium-format, you can get by with one of the more expensive flatbeds with a transparency adapter. I get pretty good scans on my medium-format chromes from the Epson 1680.

If you're talking about scanning photographs - not film - (it doesn't sound like you are) then you can probably get by with a cheaper flatbed, and then I'd go for the higher resolution. Just remember to check the maximum hardware resolution - that's the important number. The interpolated is like the digital zoom on a digital camera - rarely useful for pro work.

I'm sure others more knowledgeable than I will chime in, but I hope this helps a bit.

best,
Rick

[Nobody]

Rick, images/icons/smile.gif

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the interpolated scans are not as good. I have been looking at the Nikon 8000ED and the Minolta Diamage Multi Scan Pro for film scanners and the 1680 as a flatbed scanner. Right now I have a UMAX 2400S which is 600 X 2400 dpi. I am working on photographs sent to me in both film and print photos. I don't know if my UMAX is good enough for the print scans or not. Like I said before, I know little about scanners. Thanks for your reply and help.

If anyone else would like to comment, I would appreciate it. I can use all of the commentary that you want to share.

Ron

[Nobody]

Ron,

Both the 8000ED and the Multi are top-notch scanners - if you can afford it, I'd go with the Nikon. The Minolta is not bad, but it is an older mechanism, and the Nikon is a bit cheaper.

A good 600-dpi flatbed scanner should be able to provide decent scans of photographs - you might want to check out Hamrick's VueScan, if you aren't happy with the software that came with the UMAX.

Hopefully, some other lurkers will chime in.

Rick

[Nobody]

Rick, Again, thanks. I do like the Nikon a little better, but of course like I said in the earlier post, I don't know enough to know which is better. While looking at reviews, etc, I did see that the Nikon had done very well in the placings of film scanners on some of the reviews. I have just about made up my mind to buy the Nikon.

Ron

[Ralph_Thornton]

I've had a Nikon 4000ED since shortly after they came out and the scanner performs very well. Excellant color depth and image detail. However, Nikon is extremely lax at producing drivers comaptible for OSX. After switching to OS X 10.1 I waited six months before I could use the scanner with OS X. Then when Jaguar was released the scanner no longer worked. I got to use the scanner for only 4 months in OS X so far!
VueScan supports the Nikon scanner but I'm just not sure I'm getting the same results with VueScan as I did with the Nikon Software so I continue to do my most important work after rebooting in OS 9. (The Nikon software will work in OS 9 when you boot in 9 but it will not function in Classic mode under OSX.)