Absurd.ĪND you're still stuck with only 4 slides at once, which, given the slow scanning speed, is almost a blessing. This means you have to scan all the 2400 shots once, then go back and do the 3200 scans separately. What's more, whereas with my Minolta I could scan one negative at one resolution and another at another resolution, with the Epson, it's all or nothing: everything's scanned at 4800 or 3200 or whatever. BUT scanning at 3200 or 4800 dpi is VERY SLOW-over an hour, nearly 90 minutes for all 12 shots. I *can* scan two strips of negatives at once, 12 shots at a time. Have I reached the limit of the medium? Is scanning a negative at 4800 instead of 2880 dpi just getting a clearer shot of the grain? I doubt it, since commercial scanners scan things at yet higher resolutions. But I am just doubtful that this is really an optimal implementation of 4800 dpi. The auto settings adjust the exposure beautifully, including the color. In almost all cases, I have to use Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. Frankly, I was drawn by the low price-below $200, with the additional $50 rebate.īut I could be much happier. Now with the 4800 x 9600 dpi of this model, I expected MUCH better. 8x10 prints from an Olympus P400 dye sublimation printer were superb. It only held 4 slides or one strip of 6 negative frames. Then I upgraded a couple years ago to a Minolta Dualscan dedicated slide/negative scanner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |