> My point being that if you took the time to remount your > slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner.
True, but the curvature of film is not always due to the mounting but can be due to a number of other factors. > No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. Also true, but performance of either or any scanner can be improved and in some cases even remedied where the curvature is slight by being able to switch from autofocus the uses the center of the film to manual focus where you can define the target area of the film so as make some sort of adjustment for any curvature toward the edges of the film. My point and the point of the discussion was not to suggest a workflow that will minimize the effects of out-of-focus film edges but to note in a comparative evaluation of the two scanners the features that each has or lacks. > If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special > curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard > mounts. Scanners don't use them. That lens was not specifically for cardboard mounted film but for any film in any glassless mount that may pop as a result of projector heat. It did not work on all instances of warping and even caused other unwanted distortions. > Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've > discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple > procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) > will cure the problem. That procedure is not the cure for the problem; but it is a possible remedy for some instances of the problem but not all since there are many causes for warping of film. A more effective solution with some film scanners that have film holders that use a thin clear plastic or glass sandwich that encompasses the film chip and holds it flat; but those sorts of film holders are not available for all film scanners. Even when they are available, they create problems of their own (e.g., dirt and fingerprint collection on the four sides of the glass or plastic, Newton's Rings, and scratches on the plastic or glass surfaces. > Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement > that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning > (not on these two scanners, though). What is the point of mentioning something that is inappropriate to the two film scanners in question; moreover, that was not the point of the original post or the replies which was to compare the two film scanners as hardware devices primarily and their scanning software secondarily. It was not a discussion of scanning workflows and techniques, which one can carry out independent of any mention of particular scanners. ----Original Message---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? > I am addressing your comments, directly... > > My point being that if you took the time to remount your > slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. > > No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. > > What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the > equipment you own or the easiest scan. You can't have both. > > If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special > curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard > mounts. Scanners don't use them. > > Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've > discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple > procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) > will cure the problem. > > Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement > that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning > (not on these two scanners, though). > > Mr. Bill > > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and >> are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your >> remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, >> no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the >> edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on >> these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture >> which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my >> point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still >> holds. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the > message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body