You have to settle for low quality substitutes or expensive used gear and obsolete software to run them. I hate to tout dedicated film scanners, because the train passed that station five+ years ago. It seems this topic recurs endlessly, but there are always tidbits that add to the community knowledge. Although the free GIMP can do much the same and with almost no difference in the result. I use an old - stand alone, non-cloud - version of Photoshop for most of my post-processing. For web-size images from 35mm, it would be fine as well. I've also got a film-capable Canon flatbed that I only use for medium and large format scanning. Truthfully, I can't remember which is which now. Here's a comparison between my Primfilm scanner and a 24 megapixel digital camera copy. The post-processing is what takes the most time anyway, because you rarely get a completely satisfactory picture (as opposed to just an image) from automated software.įWIW. However, for negatives there's some afterwork to be done unless you import the result into Vuescan. I was quite happy with the performance of my Primefilm (Pacific Image) 35mm scanner, but it's now been supplanted by a digital camera copying setup that gets the job done quicker. All dedicated film scanners are slow compared to a flatbed, but the quality is superior.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |