Is it worth it to get the 8200AI over the 8200SE?The main advantage is the IT8 target which allows for proper colour calibration but I don't know how much actual difference this will make that can't be solved with colour correction in LR in post. I adjust the colours of pretty much all my photographs anyway to get them quite right.
DSLR scanning
>>4026139Just buy a GFX100s and take pictures of them and then wah lah. You got 100MP film bro[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 80DMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/11.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length100.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManual
>>4026142>>4026144extreme baby brain takes when OP is talking about a Plustek.
>>4026142>>4026144not interested in DSLR scanning because I don't plan on shooting digital, just seems like a bit of a waste. DSLR scanning is only really a good option for people who already have digital cameras.The only digital camera I would get would be for shooting video and the minimum for something like that is a £700+ Lumix camera.
>>4026148>plustekLOL
>>4026144100MP on 35mm film is completely pointless
I just bought an Epson ET-2800 scanning is 1200dpi i think its actually one of the better scanners you can get on an all-in-one printerbut how does it stack up to a dedicated thing like OP's pic
>>4026218You know nothing about enlargement. High megapixel counts are necessary for emulating the lossless scaling abilities of film
>>4026139Hey OP, some things I've learned from having a plustek scanner for a couple months now and scanning a fuckload of 126 film (square 35mm) and 35mm:Plustek hasn't updated their hardware in a while. I have an older 7600i and it's functionally identical to the 8200i, it just has an older version of the Silverfast software packed in. I was able to pay a reduced upgrade cost to get to version 8 from version 6 or something like that.The IT8 target is useful for calibrating once and then maybe again if you leave it off for a long time. It's not super critical if you're scanning raw files, but helps get your colors right if you use the built in film profiles to generate 24bit jpegs (which is a pretty common use case for most people, but I like to have the 64-bit raws instead).Scanning is fucking slow, especially if you use both the multi-exposure (HDR) and infrared (ICE) features. The "HDR" feature is great but the ICE might not be worth it if your film is clean (mine is definitely not, being from the 50s to 90s). If I wasn't doing this for my family, I wouldn't be scanning every frame of every roll they gave me with both options turned on, but here I am sitting on my ass for 10 minutes per frame.
>>4026305You know nothing about viewing distance
They're good IQ-wise, but painfully slow. I ended up selling mine and getting a Frontier (got an amazing deal). Now I get a whole uncut roll scanned at maximum resolution (5350x3602) in a few minutes. My time is so worth it.
>>4028176Wish I could do that but all the negs I have to scan have been cut. Makes me wanna cry.
>>4026139Save a few bucks and get a Coolscan V or 5000 ED that will give quality scans that would make DSLRfags seethe.>>4026142Enjoy warped pictures, improper color rendering and lens distortion.
>>4028162Not all prints from 35mm film are intended for being viewed from 10ft away, I've seen low-MP prints blown up big on the ads at bus stops and they look jaggy and dated
>>4026292>how does it stack up to a dedicated thing like OP's picYou can't scan film with yours
>feed scanning, will automatically advances film as it scans>27 megapixel true quality from scans>similar price to plustek scanners>gets quality of meme thousand dollar 2000s scanners for a fraction of the price>dust scratch removal (DSLR scans lack this)
>>4033471>checks the am*zon reviews>its shitliterally snake oil
is my best bet as a poorfag a second hand epson v scanner? I don't have a digital camera and my only scanner is the built in one in a shitty old HP deskjet.
>>4033543I had a V scanner, they are far softer than a plustel. Film scanning is extremely cucked. Decent film scanners are priced extremely high. Even a basic cheapo microcontroller can transfer data fast enough for fast film scanning. I worked with a Flextight 949/Hasselbad X series scanner. You know that shit uses an Intel 486 cpu and SDRAM?
>>4028581You can also feed it short strips (4 or 5 frames)
>>4033584>>4033475Seriously. Epson hasn't updated a lot of their drivers for older scanners to work with Windows fucking 10. Yes, 10. You have to get vuescan or something similar which work but not that well. I bought an old 2450 with a 35mm auto advance slot, which is great but the software and drivers suck ass. Its cheaper to go dslr unless you want to spend at least 1000
Whats the scanner with the best bang:buck ratio?
>>4029550>Save a few bucks and get a Coolscan V or 5000 ED that will give quality scans that would make DSLRfags seethe.i used to use a 9000ed and would chose dslr scanning over it anyday
>>4033716there's no dslr that you can get for £50
>>4026305>lossless scaling abilities of filmIs this fucking bait?
