Figital Scanner Solution

[Bruce Watson]

Also the operator to end product has a significant quality effect.

Yes. At the upper end of equipment, there is more variability in the operators than the machines. A good operator can make a big positive difference.

[Kirk Keyes]

Figital Scanners?! I still haven't figured out my digital scanner - now I'm going to have to upgrade and get a figital scanner...

[Preston]

"now I'm going to have to upgrade and get a figital scanner..."

Its a new type of scanner you have to fidget with to get it to get the best scans.

--P

[Kirk Keyes]

Oh, good. I must already have one as I fidget a lot when I scan!

[gainer]

"...they should sell a Nikon 9000-class scanner for $500, which is a quarter or a fifth of what a 9000 costs now."

At PMA the folks at the Nikon booth told me they are "out of the scanner business completely". So even if you want a 9000ED you can't get one. When I pressed the people at the booth about the scanners they had on display they told me they were "empty shells" and seemed bothered about being asked.

I also tried the Kodak route...the bottom two of the iQSmart scanners aren't being made anymore -- at least that is what the pro desk at Samy's told me. I tried to verify with Kodak and couldn't get anyone to answer my queries. I agree that it would be nice to see better offerings, but if they are quietly slipping away from the scanning business and not even supporting sales on currently listed models...

I ended up with the Hasselblad X5 which is really nice, but is limited to 4x5 or smaller and requires expensive holders. Quality is very good for 4x5 -- much better than I've been able to get on the v750 with any software/holder combination -- especially with color negative film.

Unless you are in the market for a drum scanner, there are fewer and fewer options for professional quality. There just isn't the kind of market there was even a few years ago.

[Findingmyway4ever]

If a $750ish scanner was produced, similar to that Microtek offering or the Epson scanners, but producing quality as good as or hoping would be superior to the Nikon, it would sell incredibly well. I know a LOAD of people wishing they could afford a higher end scanner. I also know a LOAD of people that do not want some mega device sitting around their place only to scan their film. They want a small format based scanner that can scan multiple formats, but provide the kind of quality they absolutely know can match the Nikon or even drum scanning territory. Epson hasn't done well or hasn't developed anything in such a long time because every single scanner is a miniscule upgrade, if at all, over their prior products. Same with Microtek which seem to even/possibly degrade in time. All I know is that thread Ted did about the Microtek and when it would be out produced a LOAD of response. I just don't see why this wouldn't be a massive seller if people worldwide could get superior scanning results and know they don't have to send their film off to drum scanners or pay $2K or whatever the going price is for a Nikon that can only scan up to roll sized film.

[Preston]

"Oh, good. I must already have one as I fidget a lot when I scan!

Man, ain't that the truth of the matter!

--P

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The reasons why not may more political than technical.

We do know that flatbeds with the resolution of roll-film scanners exist. They've just either expensive and/or remain stuck in a pre-1994-era time-warp.

One reason being that all present consumer ones big enough to scan folding money must (at least in the USA) include a software driver package that detects currency being scanned, and that connects via the internet to report such activity. (Which also leaves a backdoor in your computer OS that, once patched, tends to bomb scanner software.) Explains why the drivers for your Epson are nearly 200 MB.

Even though every scanner and printer and peripheral has a unique MAC address imagine the Treasury Department's nightmare of keeping track of all that new activity, were every high school and community college in the USA suddenly to have a scanner like this.

[Jeremy Moore]

The reasons why not may more political than technical.

We do know that flatbeds with the resolution of roll-film scanners exist. They've just either expensive and/or remain stuck in a pre-1994-era time-warp.

One reason being that all present consumer ones big enough to scan folding money must (at least in the USA) include a software driver package that detects currency being scanned, and that connects via the internet to report such activity. (Which also leaves a backdoor in your computer OS that, once patched, tends to bomb scanner software.) Explains why the drivers for your Epson are nearly 200 MB.

Even though every scanner and printer and peripheral has a unique MAC address imagine the Treasury Department's nightmare of keeping track of all that new activity, were every high school and community college in the USA suddenly to have a scanner like this.

Aren't you 3 days too late?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

No April Fools joke.

I'm reminded of all this because I just spent a couple of fruitless hours yesterday attempting to get a perfectly functional HP flatbed scanner to work with my firewalled MBP-- no joy.

When updates to Windows and OSX were released that broke all the RIAA sponsored tattleware, it also broke a lot of old scanner drivers.

If you want a scanner with software that doesn't leave a backdoor on your computer wide open, you need to go with the older stuff on a machine without updates, preferably one that is firewalled behind a router or better still isn't connected to the Internet at all.