Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
I have the 1800 with the capability to scan a whole roll. It was a big mistake. Unless they figured out how to do it for the 3650, I'd advise against. CW - Original Message - From: "Paul Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > Thanks, Lon. > > My main reason for the 3650 was wanting to start a whole roll scan and leave > it to work, but it sounds like that isn't a real good idea. Will probably > go with the Minolta and have a couple hundred $ to put to work somewhere > else. > > Paul > - Original Message - > From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:19 AM > Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > > > > AFAIK, the PF3650 is a PF3600 with ICE, GEM, etc. > > So it should be similar to mine, with more goodies. > > I'm happy with the 3600, but have not used a marque > > brand scanner. Results I get seem quite comparable > > to results I've seen on the net (snippets of actual > > scans, not lopped-down resized JPEGS). > > > > Strong points seem to be fast scan times (if you > > use firewire) and the software (I've never had the > > hangups that other people report, but I keep the > > computer it is attached to lean and clean). > > > > Weak points: if you try to scan an entire roll, you > > face two problems. One is that a whole lot of that > > roll flops around outside the scanner for quite a while, > > collecting dust like flypaper attracts bugs. Another > > is that there is usually a frame registration problem, > > so that at some point about 10 to 15 frames in, everything > > gets shifted. Finally, I've not seen good results from > > chrome film with lots of dark; a DMax problem. There can > > be some butt-ugly noise. I tested the DMAX by shooting > > one roll of Reala and one of K-64 on night-time fireworks; > > the results made me stop using chrome film. > > > > If you confine yourself to scanning 4- to 6-frame > > strips typically delivered by a lab, the frame shift > > problems are minimal to non-existant. > > > > Documentation hoovers, but as I understand it, that's > > typicaly of any digital product these days. > > > > All in all, I feel absolutely no need to "upgrade". > > My guess is, as long as you get used to a PIE and > > digital work flow in general, and stick with BW or > > color neg film, you'd feel the same. If the only > > reason you would purchase the PIE is because of > > the "whole roll at once" feature, I doubt you > > would use that feature often. And if you want to > > scan slide film, the Minolta would probably be the > > better choice. > > > > -Lon > > > > > > Paul Sorenson wrote: > > > Lon - > > > > > > How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously > > > considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several > > > sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the > > > 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/18/2004
Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
Thanks, Lon. My main reason for the 3650 was wanting to start a whole roll scan and leave it to work, but it sounds like that isn't a real good idea. Will probably go with the Minolta and have a couple hundred $ to put to work somewhere else. Paul - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:19 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > AFAIK, the PF3650 is a PF3600 with ICE, GEM, etc. > So it should be similar to mine, with more goodies. > I'm happy with the 3600, but have not used a marque > brand scanner. Results I get seem quite comparable > to results I've seen on the net (snippets of actual > scans, not lopped-down resized JPEGS). > > Strong points seem to be fast scan times (if you > use firewire) and the software (I've never had the > hangups that other people report, but I keep the > computer it is attached to lean and clean). > > Weak points: if you try to scan an entire roll, you > face two problems. One is that a whole lot of that > roll flops around outside the scanner for quite a while, > collecting dust like flypaper attracts bugs. Another > is that there is usually a frame registration problem, > so that at some point about 10 to 15 frames in, everything > gets shifted. Finally, I've not seen good results from > chrome film with lots of dark; a DMax problem. There can > be some butt-ugly noise. I tested the DMAX by shooting > one roll of Reala and one of K-64 on night-time fireworks; > the results made me stop using chrome film. > > If you confine yourself to scanning 4- to 6-frame > strips typically delivered by a lab, the frame shift > problems are minimal to non-existant. > > Documentation hoovers, but as I understand it, that's > typicaly of any digital product these days. > > All in all, I feel absolutely no need to "upgrade". > My guess is, as long as you get used to a PIE and > digital work flow in general, and stick with BW or > color neg film, you'd feel the same. If the only > reason you would purchase the PIE is because of > the "whole roll at once" feature, I doubt you > would use that feature often. And if you want to > scan slide film, the Minolta would probably be the > better choice. > > -Lon > > > Paul Sorenson wrote: > > Lon - > > > > How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously > > considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several > > sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the > > 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. > > > > Paul > >
Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
I never use mine. It's just a hassle. CW - Original Message - From: "Paul Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > Lon - > > How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously > considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several > sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the > 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. > > Paul > - Original Message - > From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 10:58 AM > Subject: Re: Scanner Test (Revisited) > > > > Our scanners are different models; I assume your > > Cyberview35 (older) is like my Cyberview (older). > > The reason Cyberview35 was killing shadows and hilights > > is that the controls in that software simply shouldn't > > be used, including "Autocolor". I use it for raw scans > > and do the color correction and levels adjustments in > > an editor. > > > > Look at your histograms in CyberviewX, and you'll see > > that it mangles them, even in 16-bit mode. Scans with > > older Cyberview don't do that. > > > > I've been messing with my scanner a lot longer than you > > have. All I'm saying, for now, is "keep the older > > Cyberview35 handy". As you get used to scanning, you > > might at some point prefer the older drive, along with > > a capable editor. > > > > Until then, enjoy CyberviewX. I readily admit that it > > beats Cyberview if you use the driver to do most adjustments. > > In fact, it's danged near idiot proof, and I like that about > > it. If I wanted to put up a web page quickly from a few rolls > > of film, I'd use it, downsize, and post. > > > > -Lon > > > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > > Are CyberView35 and CyberView different? > > > CyberView35 was killing shadows AND highlights, the sharpness was > terrible > > > too! > > > CyberViewX is doing MUCH better than CyberView35. > > > Maybe there's yet another version I don't know about? > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/17/2004
