Has anyone tested the Wolverine F2D film scanner?
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolscan vs. Epson Perfection scanners - recommendations?
Next: Special SilverFast upgrade offer for Epson Perfection 3200, 4870, 4990, V700
From: Al Dykes on 28 Apr 2010 15:09 Cheap. http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F2D200&Category_Code=F2D&Store_Code=T00107 For the price, my requirements and expectations are not high. "Good enough for Flickr" and reasonably fast would be fine. Getting my slides and negs online would allow me to make a story around them and pick any that deserve better scanning. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Nigel Feltham on 1 May 2010 06:57 Al Dykes wrote: > Cheap. > > http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F2D200&Category_Code=F2D&Store_Code=T00107 > > For the price, my requirements and expectations are not high. "Good > enough for Flickr" and reasonably fast would be fine. Getting my > slides and negs online would allow me to make a story around them and > pick any that deserve better scanning. > I'm surprised Advertising standards organisations let these companies get away with some of their misleading advertising for these things - for a start how can they get away with calling them scanners when they don't do any scanning, they're just a cheap 5m pixel camera and diffused LED light with a film holder in between. Guess this one's a bit more honest than some by calling it an image converter instead. The 5m pixels claim is also a bit dubious given that the resolution shown in the specs of 2520 x 1680 pixels is only 4.2m pixels (I find the quoted scan method of 'Single pass' amusing when it doesn't do any passes just photographs it). Being a camera rather than a scanner you also get the same beyer filter artifacts you get on digital cameras that wouldn't be there with a scanner that would give full resolution for all RGB pixels. The results are little better than using the Macro feature on a digital camera to photograph your slides against a well lit white wall (or often worse if comparing the results to a decent brand of camera with quality glass lenses).
From: Barry Watzman on 1 May 2010 18:55 An issue you did not mention is that these have cheap plastic lenses and the optics are not capable of capturing even the low resolution detail of the not-very-good low resolution sensors. Nigel Feltham wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > >> Cheap. >> >> > http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F2D200&Category_Code=F2D&Store_Code=T00107 >> For the price, my requirements and expectations are not high. "Good >> enough for Flickr" and reasonably fast would be fine. Getting my >> slides and negs online would allow me to make a story around them and >> pick any that deserve better scanning. >> > > I'm surprised Advertising standards organisations let these companies get > away with some of their misleading advertising for these things - for a > start how can they get away with calling them scanners when they don't do > any scanning, they're just a cheap 5m pixel camera and diffused LED light > with a film holder in between. Guess this one's a bit more honest than some > by calling it an image converter instead. > > The 5m pixels claim is also a bit dubious given that the resolution shown in > the specs of 2520 x 1680 pixels is only 4.2m pixels (I find the quoted scan > method of 'Single pass' amusing when it doesn't do any passes just > photographs it). Being a camera rather than a scanner you also get the same > beyer filter artifacts you get on digital cameras that wouldn't be there > with a scanner that would give full resolution for all RGB pixels. > > The results are little better than using the Macro feature on a digital > camera to photograph your slides against a well lit white wall (or often > worse if comparing the results to a decent brand of camera with quality > glass lenses).
From: Nigel Feltham on 2 May 2010 05:09 Barry Watzman wrote: > An issue you did not mention is that these have cheap plastic lenses and > the optics are not capable of capturing even the low resolution detail > of the not-very-good low resolution sensors. I'm not so sure of that one - most claim (including the one the original poster linked to) they have 4 element glass lenses now unless this is a lie as well which wouldn't surprise me. Sad thing is that a lot of people are buying them as there's no other easily available low priced option - most flatbeds with film adaptors cost more, and the older used dedicated film scanners that are available in this price range need SCSI cards that people are reluctant to install (sadly as we both know how good the old Nikon LS-30/LS-2000's are). I've had an example of this at work last week - another member of my dept has been given the job of scanning a couple of boxes of his father's slides in, he's not going to spend �100+ on hardware to scan films for someone else, is unable to lend me the slides for me to do on my Nikon and won't fit a SCSI card for me to lend him a scanner (I have 1 each of LS-1000, LS-30 and LS-2000 models as well as a Canon FS-2700 so could lend him any except the LS-2000 as I use that most). He was close to buying one of these cheap 'scanners' on ebay until I recommended reading the reviews (knowing he'd not listen to my advice not to buy it but would believe all the negative reviews online). At the moment he's experimenting over the weekend with an old 1200dpi flatbed with one of the old reflector type slide adaptors to see if he can get good enough results without any spending (and I've pointed out a couple of older 1800dpi true scanners from primefilm that may do the trick but recommended not paying more than 20ukpounds for one as there's always another one coming up to bid on). He only wants scans that his dad can view on an old laptop screen so low res scans may be good enough but not the clipped highlights you get with these 5m camera based toys. > > Nigel Feltham wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >> >>> Cheap. >>> >>> >> http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F2D200&Category_Code=F2D&Store_Code=T00107 >>> For the price, my requirements and expectations are not high. "Good >>> enough for Flickr" and reasonably fast would be fine. Getting my >>> slides and negs online would allow me to make a story around them and >>> pick any that deserve better scanning. >>> >> >> I'm surprised Advertising standards organisations let these companies get >> away with some of their misleading advertising for these things - for a >> start how can they get away with calling them scanners when they don't do >> any scanning, they're just a cheap 5m pixel camera and diffused LED light >> with a film holder in between. Guess this one's a bit more honest than >> some by calling it an image converter instead. >> >> The 5m pixels claim is also a bit dubious given that the resolution shown >> in the specs of 2520 x 1680 pixels is only 4.2m pixels (I find the quoted >> scan method of 'Single pass' amusing when it doesn't do any passes just >> photographs it). Being a camera rather than a scanner you also get the >> same beyer filter artifacts you get on digital cameras that wouldn't be >> there with a scanner that would give full resolution for all RGB pixels. >> >> The results are little better than using the Macro feature on a digital >> camera to photograph your slides against a well lit white wall (or often >> worse if comparing the results to a decent brand of camera with quality >> glass lenses).
From: Barry Watzman on 2 May 2010 12:35
Well, we both know what the "right" solutions are. But the "right" solutions have drawbacks that most people think are unacceptable (although in some cases the reality is that they are not really that big an issue, e.g. getting a SCSI card for $10 and installing it). That said, you can't judge ANY scanning solution by printed specs of the scanner. My main document scanner is an HP 5470C/5490C. It is great, fantastic, "there is no better flatbed document scanner" product. I sing it's praises from the highest hilltop. And it has an XPA (transparency adapter) and it can scan slides and negatives at 2,400 dpi (true, real hardware resolution). And it's scans of slides and negatives just plain SUCKS. Do your friend a favor: Take one of his slides or negatives, do a top quality scan on a Nikon LS-2000 scanner with Digital ICE at full resolution. Let HIM compare his scan of the same slide on any other hardware that he is considering to the Nikon. That will be the end of the argument. Nigel Feltham wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote: > >> An issue you did not mention is that these have cheap plastic lenses and >> the optics are not capable of capturing even the low resolution detail >> of the not-very-good low resolution sensors. > > I'm not so sure of that one - most claim (including the one the original > poster linked to) they have 4 element glass lenses now unless this is a lie > as well which wouldn't surprise me. > > Sad thing is that a lot of people are buying them as there's no other easily > available low priced option - most flatbeds with film adaptors cost more, > and the older used dedicated film scanners that are available in this price > range need SCSI cards that people are reluctant to install (sadly as we both > know how good the old Nikon LS-30/LS-2000's are). > > I've had an example of this at work last week - another member of my dept > has been given the job of scanning a couple of boxes of his father's slides > in, he's not going to spend �100+ on hardware to scan films for someone > else, is unable to lend me the slides for me to do on my Nikon and won't fit > a SCSI card for me to lend him a scanner (I have 1 each of LS-1000, LS-30 > and LS-2000 models as well as a Canon FS-2700 so could lend him any except > the LS-2000 as I use that most). > > He was close to buying one of these cheap 'scanners' on ebay until I > recommended reading the reviews (knowing he'd not listen to my advice not to > buy it but would believe all the negative reviews online). > > At the moment he's experimenting over the weekend with an old 1200dpi > flatbed with one of the old reflector type slide adaptors to see if he can > get good enough results without any spending (and I've pointed out a couple > of older 1800dpi true scanners from primefilm that may do the trick but > recommended not paying more than 20ukpounds for one as there's always > another one coming up to bid on). He only wants scans that his dad can view > on an old laptop screen so low res scans may be good enough but not the > clipped highlights you get with these 5m camera based toys. > > |