Sorry for a repost, but never saw this appear on the list. Can anybody recommend a flatbed A3 scanner that does not cost an arm and three legs? Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides as well but that is a secondary consideration. TIA Chris Watts

I take it that the paupers' method of using an A4 scanner and stitching the two images together doesn't appeal? > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Watts [mailto:ml@ctwatts.plus.com] > Sent: 13 May 2005 09:44 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] A3 scanners (repost) > > > > Can anybody recommend a flatbed A3 scanner that does not cost an arm and > three legs? > Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides > as > well but that is a secondary consideration. > > TIA > Chris Watts

Hello Chris, I bought an A3 Mustek scanner on the web for about £80 some months ago. Not sure how many arms and legs that is. Am very happy with it but have not used it for negatives or slides. Will try it on them if you wish. I think Mustek sell an adaptor for those, but which of their scanners it "adapts to" I know not! Try the Mustek site. Jim Halsey

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:28 +0100, "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> wrote: >Can anybody recommend a flatbed A3 scanner that does not cost an arm and >three legs? >Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides as >well but that is a secondary consideration. For under UKP 100 I believe there is no other A3 scanner other than the Mustek A3. After that you need to jump to around UKP 700 or so - unless you can find one secondhand. With its USB (not USB2) interface it does a fair job, though rather slow for full A3 scans. I also have found the USB interface a little unstable (with both Win 98SE and Win XP OSs), but still usable after the occasional reboot. The maximum optical resolution is 300 x 600 dpi on my A3 Mustek. So it would not be suitable for scanning 35 mm slides or negatives, unless you only require output to a screen, say for a web page. If you want to print from the slide scans the output preferably should be up to 3200 dpi, depending on how large you want to print. I have successfully use the Mustek A3 to scan large maps and other documents that required 4 scans (2 x 2) which were then stitched together in Adobe Photoshop Elements. I placed pencil marks on the scanner casing to help align the document for each scan. So for scanning transparencies you would need a more expensive scanner, such as one of the Epson series that has a built in light in the cover and provides the special supplied holders to hold the transparencies/negatives. In the better models the light in the cover keeps pace with the moving scanner head under the platen ensuring an even light distribution. Before I purchased my Epson 4870 photo scanner last year I read many magazine reviews and Epson photo scanners seems to come out better than either Hewlett Packard and Cannon . . . There are disputes about the Epson 4870's claimed 4800 dpi optical resolution, but 3200 dpi is all one really need for 35 mm film stock - in fact 2400 dpi is usually satisfactory. The scanner's dynamic range (how it resolves both the darkest and lightest parts of you film) is also important, particularly for transparencies (positives) as opposed to negatives that do not have as wide a dynamic range. One reason for the special negative/transparency holders is to hold the film just off the glass platten to prevent light interference patterns, although recently I successfully scanned old black and white negatives that measured 6" x 4" which had been placed straight on the platten, there being no suitable holder available. I was going to make one out of cardboard but found it unnecessary! I think that for many the cheaper Epson 3200 or 3170 scanners would be adequate as a combined (A4) paper and film scanner, but read their specifications to ensure that you do not require a feature that they do not have . . . Finally I recommend the excellent UK based photo-i web site at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ Mainly aimed at professional photographers, the reviews of equipment are very thorough and there is an online forum. I have learnt a lot from this site . . . Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England