JPEG plays such absolute havoc with images that I'd never use any JPEGS
to try and compare scanners. Download time or no download time, only
uncompressed or lossless formats should be used if you're using the
images for knocking copy...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> At 03:50 PM 18-09-00, you wrote:
> >Like Tony, David and I dare say a few others I have kept quiet about
> this
> >series of tests.
>
> You could always go back to keeping quiet :)
>
> >Alan and Co are free to write what they please and publish where and
> how
> >they see it, but they also have a "duty" to ensure that what is
> written is
> >accurate. The protocol says at approx. 1 meg jpeg. Only the SS4000
> exceeds
> >this, some don't even manage 400kbyte. So the images we view don't
even
> >satisfy your own criteria, yet you (and expect others) make judgement
> calls
> >on these scanners that could potentially effect sales.
>
> Umm, when you crop an image, the file size goes down. I imagine that
> since the ss4000 has a higher resolution it will have a bigger file
> size. Download the files and look at them yourself and you can make
> your own judgement as well as anyone else can. Also find as many
> websites as you can with information about scanners. It comes down to
> people need to decide for themselves what they need in a scanner.
>
> >Frankly, I find it quiet unbelievable that anyone would be so fool
> hardy as
> >to agree with Byrons comments regarding the softness of the SS4000
> Halloween
> >scan given that it was clearly reversed (thankfully nobody appears to
> have
> >done so, there is hope afterall)
>
> Everyone has a right to their opinion after all. The image was not
> clearly reversed. How was it clearly reversed? Perhaps the operator
did
> not have the mirror box checked. Personally, after comparing the image
> of the road (B&W negative) from the ss4000 and the Scan Elite, I can
> see where the ss4000 has a slight increase in sharpness and/or detail.
> I would imagine the increase in sharpness would be more noticeable
with
> an extremely sharp image.
>
> >In fact if anything I doubt anything Byron wrote (even the bits that
> were
> >correct) will have any credibility given such a fundamental error of
> >judgement. I can see no plausible excuse for said image even getting
> to the
> >web site for display. Alan you own the negative you should know
better.
>
> Whatever
>
> >The comment regarding noise in the hat rim is equally incorrect, had
> Byron
> >looked at the blue channel alone for the SS4000/canon he would see
> part of
> >the reason for his observations - jpeg artefacts. We have files
> compressed
> >down to 1.2meg and 430kbyte and then expect to make a fair and
> reasonable
> >determination on the scanners noise capability, get real!!!! The
canon
> blue
> >channel is a mass of clumped jpeg artefacts, there is virtually no
> detail
> >that can be misconstrued as noise. The SS4000 isn't as bad and has
> detail,
> >you see detail Byron, NOT NOISE!!!!
>
> The files are not resized, just saved in a different format. Would you
> be willing to wait for a level 7 or 8 jpg to download? For that matter
> e-mailing it would take awhile too.
>
> >The blown highlights are NOT a feature of the SS4000. I have used
this
> >scanner extensively with Insight, SilverFast and VueScan. Frankly,
the
> >operator screwed something badly, because this problem is not a
> function of
> >any of these programs when properly configured. While we're at it the
> Elite
> >scan shows the same problem. The scanwit and canon not so bad, but
> again
> >this proves nothing
>
> Any ideas on how not to have blown highlights? Perhaps there is a
> setting being overlooked?
>
> >I'm privileged enough to have full access to three of the models
> discussed,
> >namely the LS30, the SS4000 and the Canon 2710. I also have fairly
free
> >access to the Scanwit and Minolta units. So far as what has been
> written
> >about the Canon, Nikon and SS4000 I can only write - bilge!!!!
>
> Why don't you do a your own scanner test (since you have access to so
> many scanners) and post it to the web?
>
> >Folk join this list to gain a better insight as to the good and bad
of
> >scanners, how to best use their scanners, etc. The Group Scan site
> began
> >with admirable intentions, but alas some of those commenting to date
> have
> >IMO done nothing but damage. None of the scanners discussed is
> inherently
> >bad, but this is not the message being given out, either by word or
> scan!!!
>
> Unfortunately you can't try before you buy when you purchase a
scanner.
> I imagine it would be difficult to return too unless it was broken.
> None of the scanners are bad but I image people would like to get the
> best they can afford. I know I would.
>
> >No doubt many will be severely pissed at my views, but consider this
-
> I'm
> >equally pissed at the garbage being passed off as helpful
information.
>
> Well gee, I thought I was doing something helpful. If it is such
> garbage, then leave it in your garbage. Don't pull it out and look at
> it again, trash it and move on. Like I said at the beginning of this
> post: "You could always go back to keeping quiet"
>
> >Ian Lyons
> >http://welcome.to/computerdarkroom
>
> Jules_C
>
>
> ====================================================================
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE
> > FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you
> are reading the Digest.
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
