Agfa DuoScan, T2500 and Linotype Saphir Ultra II

[david_klepacki]

I would like to batch scan 645 Velvia slides (strips, not mounted)

from my Windows NT 4.0 PC. Many nice things have been said about the

Minolta Multi Film Scanner, but that machine is not capable of batch

scanning in strips. Therefore, I have chosen these three flatbeds as

representing the highest quality for the under-$4000 price: the Agfa

DuScan, The Agfa duoScan T2500, and the Linotype Saphir Ultra II.

 

(1)The Linotype has had very positive remarks made about it, but I

have read about problems with Newton rings on this machine on various

web sites. Some of the solutions involved using some kind of oil on

the scanning glass as well as the slides themselves. I would rather

not do this, but I would like to hear from anyone else in this group

about their success with this printer on MF scans, and how they liked

the quality of this scanner (or why they rejected it). Of course,

this machine is attractive for its much lower cost.

 

(2)The other decision is choosing between the DuoScan and the DuoScan

T2500. Obviosuly, the T2500 is better, but at substantial increased

cost. Has anyone tested these two scanners, and would care to comment

about their relative quality. I am not interested in printing

anything beyond 5x7 (dye-sub 300dpi); therefore, do I realy need the

T2500 as opposed to the Duoscan? In other words, would the quality

of the printed output be negligible for the "best" scans from these

two machines at this print resolution and scale? Or are the actual

optics in the T2500 that much superior. I believe the Dmax is 3.3

for the Duoscan, and 3.4 for the T2500.

 

Thanks for your coments,

 

David Klepacki

dklpeac@ibm.net

[ronald_l._marvin]

I've been researching this myself. Currently I'm leaning toward the Agfa DuoScan T2500. The film is placed in a carrier that goes into the center part of the scanner and never comes into contact with glass; so there will not be any problems with newton rings. The 2500 ppi resolution is nice to have. You don't need to scan this high but it can be useful if you ever want to output to a digital photographic printer, which I do from time to time (a Sienna, great quality).

 

B&H lists the T2500 for $3,999.95 in the December catalog I received the other day. The density range of the T2500 is listed in the Agfa brochure at 3.4 (which yields an actual Dmax of 3.5). I've never had any trouble with my Agfa Vision scanner, its a great film scanner-but only will scan images up to 40mm x 40mm.

 

The DuoScan is nice too, but I don't like odd scanning resolutions - it is 1000 ppi x 2000 ppi maximum optically; too bad it isn't 2000x2000 (if you wanted it to scan at 2000x2000 ppi it would be interpolated). A 5x7 image at 300 ppi equals 1500 x 2100.

 

A full frame 645 on most cameras yields an image rougly 56mm x 41.5mm. Scanning at maximum resolution with the DuoScan at 1000x1000 ppi equals 2240 x 1660. (1000 ppi = Res 40; this means 40 lines per millimeter. This figure is arrived by dividing the ppi (pixels per inch) rating by 25.4. Since there is 25.4mm per inch). Therefore 56 x 41.5 = 2240x1660. This is more than enough for your 5x7 prints (@ 300 dpi).

 

The T2500 (approx. Res 100) will yield an image 5600 x 4150. For me the T2500 is better because the digital prints I have made are 8x10. At 300 dpi I need something that will give me 2400x3000. Keep in mind, that most printers will make a decent print from an image that is half the size of the specified output resolution. In my example, an image of 1200x1500 will give me a decent 8x10 when printed at 300 dpi. I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up but I've done this often and visually the results look great.

 

Hope this is helpful.

[tony_correa]

I can't comment on the Linotype, but d have the T2500 to comment on.

The glassless carriers that the T2500 comes with only handle: 4x5, 6x9, 35mm strips up to six frames/strip, 35mm mounted slides up to 16 slides, and an 'universal' glass carrier. To scan 645 you would have to cut individual frames and use the 6x9 carrier which would (a) introduce a lot of flare around the edges unless you make your on black mask and (b) will not be held by all 4 sides. The other option is to lay you strips on the glass carrier. This in my experience introduces newton rings. Agfa has masks for the various 120 formats for use in the glass carrier but these are just for single frames.

The other flatbed scanners I have seen operate in similar ways. I don't think there is any scanner under $4,000 that would meet all of your requirements.

Regards,

Tony

[patrick_drennon]

I've had a Duoscan for about a year now and am satisfied with its performance. Be aware that the software is moody and Agfa's tech support has ranged from good to absolutely horrible.

[lightcraftsman]

The Linocolor software is excellent. If I decide to buy another scanner soon the Ultra II will be my choice, but after using a Tango drum scanner recently I'm spoiled by the quality. For your intended use I'd venture an educated guess that any of these scanners will do the job. But that Linicolor software makes getting good scans almost painless.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

tony, why don't heidelberg and agfa use a anti-newtoning glass? seems to be a cheap fix. In the reviews I've read of the saphir no one mentions the rings.

[tony_correa]

Why no newton glass? Good question.

BTW: I've also used the Minolta Multi scanner. Never had a problem with newton rings, or flare, since it does use newton galss and has the proper masks for the various 120 formats. Also, with the Minolta you can keep your film in strips of about 8". But you do have to scan one frame at a time.

[waldemar]

I´m using the Multi with great results for 6x7 slide film, but the

scans from 6x4,5 appear rather soft. Try it out first for 6x4,5.