Seite 2 von 2
Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections
Verfasst: Montag 14. März 2022, 13:59
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
Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections
Verfasst: Montag 14. März 2022, 23:43
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.
Re: Film scanner vs digital camera - biological/geological thin sections
Verfasst: Dienstag 15. März 2022, 09:04
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?