[LargeFormat] cost of scanning question

[Piers Cawley]

Alan Davenport <w7apd@comcast.net> writes:

> At 05:33 AM 10/13/2003, you wrote:
>>Recently had  4   4x5  black and white negs scanned at 2000dpi by a lab.
>>The amount they charged would have been enough for 2 nice flatbeds.
>>Is this normal everywhere?
>
> Yes.

I think it probably depends on your definition of 'nice
flatbed'. Personally, I want a flatbed that will let me batch scan at
least all 36 exposures on a roll, glasslessly, and do the same for a
roll of 120 or a pile of 4x5s. Ideally it would have a glassless
holder for Type 55 negatives as well, which are just that little bit
bigger than 4x5.

Now, if you could get two such scanners for what you paid for your
scans, how much do you want for the second one?

Seriously, professional scanners are a very long way from
inexpensive; For a start you're looking at something with an A3+
scanning bed, and CCDs don't go that wide, so they'll be doing X-Y
stitching tricks, which costs lots both in precision engineering
terms and in the costs of developing good stitching software. When I
was pricing up my scanner (and deciding on the ArtixScan 1800f in the
end, it's not what I'd like, but it's what I'm prepared to spend...)
I had a look at the bottom end pro stuff. At least 2400x2400 hardware
resolution, A3+ bed, 3.7+ Dmax (and that's *real*, not the '4.8
theoretical' bollocks). Even the bottom end comes in at =C2=A35K+.

When you've got that kind of capital investment on the line, and a
4x5 scan that's going to take up a relatively large amount of its
scanning time (The bottom end scanners seem to average 'up to 30
scans an hour', but I doubt very much that that's 30 4x5 scans an
hour, it's really no wonder that professional scans cost so much.=20