B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Having been reading about film scanners, it seems that Minolta is one of the most popular on here. These seem to be the ones available but I haven't looked for the best price, just trying to get an idea of what's out there.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
I've more or less decided on a Minolta Scan Dual II USB.
From all the ones you listed, it's the only one within my budget.
I'd love a Nikon Coolscan IV or 4000, but those are simply too expensive. Might be able to afford a IV in half a year, but I need a scanner now as the old cheapo I got as an interim died yesterday. (prices here are quite a bit steeper than in the US, the Coolscan IV would cost me over $1000, the Minolta Dual II runs at about $600 here).
EBOS From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2234 times:
I have a Minolta Scan Dual II USB and it's doing a great job. The USB scanner is easy to plug in and is rather fast. The software for image correction (brightness, contrast, gamma...) is easy to use. Most of the shots are corrected automatically. I bought it for §480.
An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2231 times:
Whatever you get, don't get one with a SCSI interface. I had a Coolscan III with that, and boy, was it slow. My new one has Firewire, and the data transfer seems at least 5 or 10 times faster. I don't know if USB is as fast - I've never tried it.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2225 times:
In terms of speeds, it runs parallel, USB, SCSI, Firewire - but that's only part of the story - the speed of your disk will also have a bearing on how fast the data can transfer, and your processor - and especially your memory - will determine how long the scan processes takes, paticularly if you use dust/scratch removal algorithms.
What should you buy - well ultimately it comes down to what you want to use it for. If you only want to produce output for screen you can get away with a much lower spec than if you want to produce large prints.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
I have no complaints so far about the Minolta Dual Scan II USB, although I'll admit that I prefer using VueScan than the supplied driver software. I've had it for around 5 months and every one of my shots here were scanned using it.
My prime concerns when buying it were (a) price - reasonable and (b) ease of installation as I didn't want to faff about disassembling the computer to install a SCSI card - USB sorted that.
WOuld I buy the same again? I have no way of knowing whether the more expensive scanners are worth the extra, but I'm happy with the results I'm getting.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2210 times:
More expensive scanners ARE worth the extra ... but only if you're gonna use that higher spec. If you want to produce A3 or larger prints, then you really can benefit from 4000 dpi. But otherwise forget it.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2210 times:
Hey, B757300... That's a fairly serious computer for someone who's been saying that they can't afford a film scanner!!! You could have probably stuck with a P3 450 +128mb or something like that and bought a film scanner as well!
Colin, yes, I'm sure the more expensive film scanners offer more capabilities or facilities and these are of value to some, but I'm using my scanner only for web stuff so the 2820dpi of the Minolta does fine. Besides, when I bought the film scanner I really wasn't sure how much I was going to use it and didn't want to spend huge amounts on something that might just end up gathering dust. Five months later, I know the answer to that one - it gets used quite a bit!
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2209 times:
The computer belongs to my parents, not me. I just get to use it for things that need better computing power then my personal one can provide. I'm just a poor college student. My personal computer is a 133MHz Pentium I but it does have 128Mb or RAM!
Sonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
A bit off topic but here's just a word to folks out there that belive that more RAM will do the trick - it won't (for the most part).
Unless your system's running WinNT, 2000, Unix (various flavours), or OS/2 then anything over 128 is generally pointless anyways. Win 95, 98 and ME doesn't make use of all the RAM (above 128MB), although some applications that run in all those environments/OS's do use up the RAM independently of the OS (Photoshop, for instance). However, since most progs are OS/environment dependent, then by the virtue of the OS's limitations data processing (not the type associated with using Word or WordPerfect) will be affected accordingly. One method of increasing this is having a faster processor.
I'm surprised you didn't get quick results with your SCSI scanner. I suppose it depends on the card you have. Most scanners require a simple SCSI interface, but by that token the transfer speeds are limited to a mere 10-20 MB/s transfer rate. (When considering the transfer of raw data - that's slow!!). A higher-end SCSI card will offer up to 80-160MB/s transfer rates.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Sonic99 - not strictly true ... what you get are diminishing returns for memory over 128mb - some improvement, but not much. However, this applies to running benchmarks under Windows, not real world situations. Any graphics/scanning software I'm aware of can take advantage of as much memory as you can throw at it, with significant improvements in performance.
Andy - I'm in full agreement with you - the point I wanted to make was not to waste money on a super high res scanner UNLESS you're sure you're gonna need 100mb+ files!