File :-(, x, )
Flatbed vs film scanner Anonymous
Left: Minolta Scan Dual III
Right: Canon CanoScan 8400F

Minolta does not have ICE, so the scans are dusty as hell..

but the detail... :---O

Also I thought my zoom produced craploads of CA and other color errors.

In Minolta's scans there are NONE. ---> Canon sucks big time.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2820 dpiVertical Resolution2820 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 01:15:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1640Image Height820
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Shit i'm planning on getting a canoscan 8800f
How much is that Minolta Scan Dual III?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
left: default tiff from vuescan
right: default raw conversion from adobe camera raw (+ curves to invert colors)

...

...

Don't mind the grain. Uh. Eww. Damn. My scanner sucks :-D

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2820 dpiVertical Resolution2820 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 01:28:24Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1640Image Height820
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is starting to look as good as digital images... detail and sharpness-wise that is.

Of course grain is what it is, but..

>>149920

I don't know. I loaned the scanner from local camera club. Production has ceased long ago, so if you want one, you must buy used. Seems to be pretty cheap on ebay.

Only the lack of ICE (dust & scratches removal via infrared) leaves me thinking whether I should buy one or not.. maybe I could clean up the scans with some soft brush or something. My air pump doesnt' seem to do much.

Abort trap (core dumped)
>> parshimers !y2fz.HIyUQ
>>149935
that's pretty clean imo. it's pretty goddamned hard to something so clean that it has absolutely no dust on it, especially film since it tends to have static electricity on it.
>> Anonymous
Also, real film scanner is a real film scanner. I wouldn't buy a 8800F if I was going to scan 35mm film. Medium format film would probably be OK.
>> About lenses Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Now I can also see what lenses suck and what not..

Cosinon 28mm 2.8 for M42 mount.

Corner performance is well.. bad :P

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeMinoltaCamera ModelScan Dual IIICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 03:01:36Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3820Image Height2580
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CA/whatever purple fringing with Canon 8400F

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution3200 dpiVertical Resolution3200 dpiImage Created2008:03:22 00:56:09Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height787
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Minolta SD3

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3876Image Height2572Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution666 dpiVertical Resolution666 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:03:29 03:51:38Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800
>> Anonymous
Jesus christ as if this is even a fucking debate. If you use a flat bed you should shoot yourself out of a cannon and kill yourself.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>149995
A reasonably good flatbed can be had for $200.

A dedicated film scanner that'll handle medium-format will cost more like $2000.
>> Anonymous
>>149995

Is it wrong to post examples? :P As if everyone would buy a Nikon Coolscan V to pair their $5 old manual focus film slr right off the bat...
>> Anonymous
>>150004
But the price is much more manageable if you're only shooting 35mm. People use flatbeds anyways for MF.
>> Anonymous
>>150012

If you really think that flatbeds and film scanners are even remotely comparable, then you have alot to learn about the digital reproduction of photography.
>> Anonymous
>>150012
>$5 slr

LOL WUT
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Hmm I wanted mine for Slides, not really negatives as much.

I'm cheap though lol, not worth spending $1000+ for like 15 rolls of my own, and a few hundred of my parents. (won't be scanning them all obviously)
>> Anonymous
>>150073
Zenit?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
Speaking of flatbed scanners,
i'm thinking of replacing my aging HP 7400c with either a Canon CanoScan 8800F or Epson Perfection V300.
Any suggestions?

Also, for 35mm, Nothing beats a Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ;)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150072
I'm just going to assume you're a troll rather than arguing, because clearly they are comparable. They're being compared in this very thread, in fact.

>>150073
Lrn2film