SeanyP
pfm Member
I've got a 3170 which is about to be skipped (it's crap). Could you share your mods so I can attempt the same. I've already budgeted for a new flatbed anyway, so it doesn't matter if I make a complete arse of it.
which scanner and how to buy?
- Thread starter pcam0
- Start date
I've got a 3170 which is about to be skipped (it's crap). Could you share your mods so I can attempt the same. I've already budgeted for a new flatbed anyway, so it doesn't matter if I make a complete arse of it.
Artioneer
tripath walker
Mine was exactly the same and I think it was in bits within weeks of ownership - I always kept a sheet with capacitor old and replacement values but please consider that this was a year ago and the notes are long gorne.
I have a few 3170 spares so if you break anything you may be in luck and I can supply the Oscons but not the Stargets or Panasonic HFQ - I just can't remember the sizes or values
It's worth mentioning that I use Epson 3.04a software and when it's apart clean the glass and use low press. compressed air to clean the inside and keep the parts covered at all times.
1) Remove the lid and then the two screws below the hinges.
2) Split the halves to about an inch at the cables end.
3) I then give the top part a sharp bang (with my lower palm) to dislocate the front tongue (be careful) and split the two parts.
4) Disengage the belt at the spring loaded pulley (near the control buttons)
5) Lift the main shaft at the cables end and remove the s/s clip (underneath) which clamps the belt to the main CCD sensor carriage.
6) Push the main carriage forwards out of the way and now you have access to the motor and main pcb.
7) I removed the 4 screws on the motor (top) and re-greased it but machine oiling the spindle would suffice.
8) Damp around the motor and plate with whatever - think LP12, Pink ^
9) Remove the main PCB and upgrade the capacitors, I re wet/make every joint that I can get access to with good quality siver loaded solder.
10) Getting into the CCD sensor pcb is a little difficult but I did manage to get some Oscons in there.
11) To clean the CCD I use (very litle) mild soap detergent, leave to part dry and wipe and then dust off with camel hair brush or similiar.
12) Loosen the two screws at the rear of the main carriage to adjust the CCD - this is very much hit and miss and it took me about 45 mins and a dozen or two tries to get a satifactory scan
The below photos are taken with a Minox 35 EL, 124G, olde 3 1/4" glass slide, obviously if I knew what I was doing I could improve these.
Joe,
that's an interesting comparison site, but it is hard to draw conclusions with only a single film segment is given for each example. I would prefer to see the central section and a corner from the same scan. It seems that getting a sharp scan across an entire slide/negative is an issue for some scanners.
Nick
that's an interesting comparison site, but it is hard to draw conclusions with only a single film segment is given for each example. I would prefer to see the central section and a corner from the same scan. It seems that getting a sharp scan across an entire slide/negative is an issue for some scanners.
Nick
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
I have an Epson inkjet which produces pretty good results in combination with a dedicated b&w RIP (http://www.quadtonerip.com/). I got a pro to do my recent exhibition prints, and he did a great job and we've become pretty friendly, so I'll probably use him for most serious printing from now on. Printing at home isn't cheap, ink and good paper costs a lot.
-- Ian
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Nick,
Joe
Yeah, I suspect the scanner market is too much of a niche for anyone to bother doing a useful comparison. And even if such a site existed, it takes effort to get the best out of each model. The early scans with my Minolta scanner were crap, but they're much better now that I've figured out how to use it.
Joe
As for getting the best out of a scanner, it's a bit like saying getting the best out of a pair of speakers - you have to consider what you are feeding it before you can discuss this.
From my experience if you have reasonably well exposed images, either negatives or chromes the results are very good. What do I mean by good? I mean that a 2400dpi scan of a MF frame gives me 30mpixels to play with which after a bit of sharpening look superb. If I can't get a good print out of the image i've scanned then it points at my photographic technique as the limiting factor, not the scanner. Sure, a really expensive scanner may grab some more detail, or allow me to rescue something i've messed up, but the best solution would be to actually get the exposure right in the first place.
I'll stick an example up when I get the chance.
Cesare
From my experience if you have reasonably well exposed images, either negatives or chromes the results are very good. What do I mean by good? I mean that a 2400dpi scan of a MF frame gives me 30mpixels to play with which after a bit of sharpening look superb. If I can't get a good print out of the image i've scanned then it points at my photographic technique as the limiting factor, not the scanner. Sure, a really expensive scanner may grab some more detail, or allow me to rescue something i've messed up, but the best solution would be to actually get the exposure right in the first place.
I'll stick an example up when I get the chance.
Cesare
I'm using an epson photo 4490, which is a cheap V700 with less capacity. Basically it does 2*6 strips of 35mm or 1 strip of MF. Costs half the money of the V700, has it's scanning specs aren't as good as the V700 but aren't far off.
Here is an example MF frame from my RZ67. It's a 6*7 scan at 2400 dpi. I've cropped it to 4*5 format which is basically all of the original frame. The result is 5158 * 6453 pixels. I could scan at 3200 dpi and get similar results but I don't need the extra resolution. Here is the full frame reduced for web viewing:
Here is a 100% crop of the left eye to give you an idea of the quality of the scan. Sorry this is a bit large but it's not the best image to find a small detail I can show 100%.
Looking at this crop, the eyelashes are quite sharp and well defined under the eye. His eye brow looks to be out of focus as the DOF is probably only an inch or so. His nose looks to be slightly blown out. My exposure was a bit off, and that's my fault - can't blame the scanner for that. I'm not sure what the cross shape reflected in his eye is - looks like a window but I don't think there was one behind me at the time.
Cesare
Here is an example MF frame from my RZ67. It's a 6*7 scan at 2400 dpi. I've cropped it to 4*5 format which is basically all of the original frame. The result is 5158 * 6453 pixels. I could scan at 3200 dpi and get similar results but I don't need the extra resolution. Here is the full frame reduced for web viewing:
Here is a 100% crop of the left eye to give you an idea of the quality of the scan. Sorry this is a bit large but it's not the best image to find a small detail I can show 100%.
Looking at this crop, the eyelashes are quite sharp and well defined under the eye. His eye brow looks to be out of focus as the DOF is probably only an inch or so. His nose looks to be slightly blown out. My exposure was a bit off, and that's my fault - can't blame the scanner for that. I'm not sure what the cross shape reflected in his eye is - looks like a window but I don't think there was one behind me at the time.
Cesare
