He now has results on film scanning. The results don't look to me to be
significantly better than the 3200 scans, particularly the unsharpened
ones. But it is hard to tell from the examples he gives. One would
have to check a scene with a lot of very fine detail.
Basically, he's already shown that the Nikon LS-1000 at 2700dpi
(several years old 35mm scanner) can be bettered by the Epson by a bit,
but not so much that we'd think it's a true 4000dpi 35mm slide scanner.
That said, it's a 'useful' if you want a flatbed + 2700dpi 35mm
scanner in one, but for sure, it's nowhere near the quality or
resolution achieved today from the 4000dpi (or 5400dpi Minolta) slide
scanners out today.
So, if you're trying to archive 35mm slides with the highest quality
possible, keep looking at the 4000/5400dpi slide scanners. If you don't
care and just want a ~9.9MP scan of a 35mm slide (24x36mm 35mm frame *
2700dpi or so equiv. scanner), there you go.
Keep in mind that Kodak has already said their films (not Techpan) gets
about 25MP or so in detail, so you'll definitely lose detail if you've
got sharp lenses and scan with the Epson (vs. a 5400dpi Minolta SLide
Scanner).
---
Here, years ago, already tried the Minolta Scan Dual series (2438
dpi:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DSD/DSDA.HTM) to try and
archive slides, and just found it to be too low in resolution and detail
to be worth the time archiving slides.
Minolta 5400 today would easily meet those criteria and easily
capture everything off a 35mm slide for most uses and would be the
smarter choice here.
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/Film,Scanner/Minolta,DiMAGE,Scan,Elite,5400/PRD_173258_3126crx.aspx
---
You can compare the Minolta 5400 vs. lower dpi Nikons (eg. can be
used to compare vs. the LS-1000 above and Epson) here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm
world of difference in detail!
