Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections

Fragen/Themen aus den Gebieten Scannen, Bildbearbeitung, Farbmanagement etc.
Forumsregeln
In diesem Forum dürfen keine Beiträge mit gewerblichen Angeboten, privaten Verkaufsangeboten oder Links zu gewerblichen Seiten eingestellt werden.
Tzontonel
Beiträge: 9
Registriert: Freitag 23. Oktober 2020, 09:38

Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections

Beitrag von Tzontonel »

Sorry for being late for a while. Currently, I'm doing my scans with the OpticFilm 8200i scanner. I want to increase the quality and the resolution of my scans.
Recently I saw the OPTISCAN10 scanner on the market, and it is in my budget (no more than 1000 euros). There is anyone here on the forum with some feedback regarding this scanner? Samples, effective resolution, it's much better than OpticFilm 8200i scanner, it is worthing the upgrade?

Regards,
Andrei
micha12345
Beiträge: 165
Registriert: Dienstag 30. Januar 2018, 15:29

Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections

Beitrag von micha12345 »

As it appears the Optiscan10 is another specialized version of the Pacific Image entry level scanner (seems to be discontinued, no longer listed on the Pacific Image/Scanace product page?!), hardware adapted to the current 10K resolution Pacific Image product line.

USAF 1951 resolution forum discussion here and other WWW examples have shown, the 10K resolution is indeed an upgrade, but only a minor one far away from the 10K resolution.

Have a look at this aricle (german, please send it through a translater).

The article shows the measured USAF 1951 resolution of an Refelcta 10M (as an example of the current Pacific Image 10K product line) and your 8200i in detail. Resolutions obtained are within the same range. Both scanners are well calibrated, not much more resolution to be expected based on other WWW infos. So not worth an upgrade, but maybe a sidegrade because of for the job better equipped software and easier sections loading.

But the same article shows a real resolution upgrade as well. DSLR scanning with the Pentax K1 II Pixelshift and excellent lens. The Pixelshift feature makes it possible to achieve resolutions that are otherwise reserved for good drum scanners. Unfortunatelly hardware costs are far out of budget.

Another hint. If the scanning area of your 8200i is too small for your sections. There is a medium format hardware mod for the Plustek scanner family, see this link for more.
Meine Staubfänger: Canon FS4000US, Epson 4490, Epson V500, Kodak FD-300, Kodak Pakon F335C, Minolta F-2900, Minolta F-2800, Nikon LS-2000, PIE PF 3650 Pro3, Plustek OF 7500i, Reflecta CS 7200
Tzontonel
Beiträge: 9
Registriert: Freitag 23. Oktober 2020, 09:38

Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections

Beitrag von Tzontonel »

micha12345 hat geschrieben: Montag 14. März 2022, 23:43 As it appears the Optiscan10 is another specialized version of the Pacific Image entry level scanner (seems to be discontinued, no longer listed on the Pacific Image/Scanace product page?!), hardware adapted to the current 10K resolution Pacific Image product line.

USAF 1951 resolution forum discussion here and other WWW examples have shown, the 10K resolution is indeed an upgrade, but only a minor one far away from the 10K resolution.

Have a look at this aricle (german, please send it through a translater).

The article shows the measured USAF 1951 resolution of an Refelcta 10M (as an example of the current Pacific Image 10K product line) and your 8200i in detail. Resolutions obtained are within the same range. Both scanners are well calibrated, not much more resolution to be expected based on other WWW infos. So not worth an upgrade, but maybe a sidegrade because of for the job better equipped software and easier sections loading.

But the same article shows a real resolution upgrade as well. DSLR scanning with the Pentax K1 II Pixelshift and excellent lens. The Pixelshift feature makes it possible to achieve resolutions that are otherwise reserved for good drum scanners. Unfortunatelly hardware costs are far out of budget.

Another hint. If the scanning area of your 8200i is too small for your sections. There is a medium format hardware mod for the Plustek scanner family, see this link for more.
Thank you @micha for your help. Indeed, both scanners are very close in terms of resolution.
The format is good, the only downside for 8200i is the holder. But I try to create a custom holder for my needs.

One more question, there is any info regarding the following parameters (for 8200i)
- focal length (distance to subject/surface of my thin sections);
- depth of field (I know that this is very small, but I want to know how much). Less than 1 mm?
Antworten