On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:06:38 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

Problem with scanners is that they are designed for sheets of paper
and the slide scanning is almost without exception mediocre.

Hi,

Flatbed scanners that can scan film have a backlight and a deeper
carriage, in those respects they are no different from dedicated film
scanners.

I've
tried the 1670 and would suggest it's performance on slides is very
significantly inferior to the results obtained by a 1M pixel camera
with a good lens.

I've had reasonable results scanning negatives with a Canoscan 5000F,
here's a sample of the Eiffel Tower:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan0001b.jpg (1.8Mb)

I would say that viewing on a 1280x1024 screen captures all the
available detail, putting it about 1.3Mp.

Here's another one of the Champs Elysee:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan00011b.jpg (1.6Mb)

This time if you zoom in on the lights at the end of the street, then
look at the image at 1280x1024, the screen doesn't represent all the
detail fully.

This detail is better represented at 1900x1200, so I'd put it at 2Mp,
and expect it can give pretty good enlargements up to 12" x 8".

If you want decent results you really need a slide scanner and, if
the slides are old one, with integral Digital ICE

If you just want to print off some reasonable enlargements I would say
that a film capable flatbed scanner will do.

If you want to digitally archive or create very good enlargments from
slides then a good dedicated film scanner is required.

One thing I've found is that the 5000F doesn't cope too well with
flash pictures where areas are over exposed, I'm going to get some
tinted film to reduce the light output to see if that helps.

If you just want reasonable enlargements with the occasional top
quality one, one way to go is to do the former with a flatbed scanner
and send the slides away for the latter.

cheers,
Pete.