The Fuji scanners use area sensors, as well as many cine film scanners like Blackmagic. They are essentially oddly shaped digital cameras. Scanning and "merely taking a photograph of photograph" is exactly the same thing.
Agreed. You should.
Using a camera to.....errrrr scan an image is NOT scanning it is merely taking a photograph of a photograph. Come on get the terms correct! It is so very easy to get sloppy when describing something incorrectly.
Come on get the terms correct!
OTOH, one can make the point that 'photo replication with SLR' existed for DECADES preceeding the invention of any 'scanning' device (the first of which was the advent of the photocopier!)
I submit that 'photo replication with dSLR' is more similar in both concept and practice to 'photo replication with SLR' (only digital sensor in liue of film is the difference) , than it is similar to any electromechanical 'scanner'.
BTW, thank you for the links in Post 67.
I just checked my canoscan 9000F. She was still alive and eagerly waiting for producing some output in combi with Silverfast software. They are both doing fine work. I was surprised the analogue film uptick(youngsters, hipsters,...) would keep cheap filmscanners alive. So this uptick doesn't exist or isn't big enough for Canon or Epson to keep producing the flatbeds.
The uptick exists. Most of those youngsters get scans back from the lab.
there wasn't a scanning uptick alongside the analogue film uptick as there was in the twilight zone of early 2000's when millions of grandpa's and grandma's and dads and mothers started scanning the analogue archives
… and didn't photo replication with a camera exist many decades before the SLR?
Achieving accurate focus on the slide/neg being replicated (onto film) was more easily verified with the SLR than with any rangefinder-focus device. Sheetfilm did not require a lens, mere 'contact print' via a sandwich of the original image onto the replicating medium. The point, however, was not the type of camera (like 'SLR') but in the replication of image using [camera+lens+medium of replication], for both film and for digital, not entailing any inventuion of a electromechanical device ('scanner'). No 'semantics' implied via this discussion, merely similarity of process btw film-based and digital sensor camera+lens
Sure, I understood your intent. Such replication was done in the 19th century too. Not arguing, especially about semantics… just having a pleasant conversation about the history of photography.
I think most of the cyan dye has left the building in the interim. Hey, it's been some 70 years! Could have been a lot worse.Not sure if the slide color is suppose to be like this given the lighting used . . .
Pacific Image XAS and XA Plus $549 on amason are outstanding scanners. I get better results with XAS compared to Lab scans with frontier and Noritsu. And having control is a must.
Their 120 while not as outstanding as XAS produce great results.
I think most of the cyan dye has left the building in the interim. Hey, it's been some 70 years! Could have been a lot worse.
Good point about those Pacific Image scanners, which are I believe marketed as 'Reflecta' this side of the pond. I wonder why they seem to be less popular than the Plusteks, when at least on paper they seem to be better spec'ed. Perhaps the different branding confuses users. Probably more expensive and difficult to source too.
I did see some samples scans from a Reflecta 10T (4.1K dpi real resolution, the one reviewed here https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan10T.html) which I thought were really really good, but I've never owned one of these scanners so don't know anything about reliability/compatibility with current computers etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?