3 ms·
It’s not clear from this post which was better, the Nikon or the Hasselblad?
by pimlottc 4y ago
It’s not clear from this post which was better, the Nikon or the Hasselblad?
- beezle 4y agoI think the Nikon was 4000 dpi so imagine he means Hasselblad
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoThe X1 was probably better, as it was a [almost] drum scanner. But scanner tech seems to have basically "hit a wall," in the last decade, or so. Not many advancements in the imaging. I think digicams and pure digital images/documents have made it difficult to justify the cost of developing them.
- buildbot 4y agoThe Hasselblad. They are considered to be as close to drum scans as scanners can get.
- fmajid 4y agoThe Flextight is definitely better than the CoolScan, but not approaching drum scan quality. A very good CCD scanner with a great enlarger-quality lens, and the transport is very good at keeping the film flat along the line scanned by the CCD, by the expedient of bending it cylindrically, but it's not the same dynamic range as the photomultipler tube on a drum scanner, or even what the old $50K prepress X-Y flatbed scanners like a Creo Scitex or Fuji Lanovia could do.
- buildbot 4y agoOh I know/agree. It is literally described as a virtual drum scanner by B&H for example though, as inaccurate as that is. To me the main difference is CCD vs. photomultipler.
- keithbingman 4y agoSorry, yeah I meant the Hasselblad. The Imacon we had was quite old, but it was an amazing scanner.