On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:04:19 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The other I'll call
"shark's tooth", and it looks like tiny spikes at regular intervals on
high contrast edges.
It's a regular, stepped displacement (on the y axis of a landscape scan)
of pixels which repeats every
The other I'll call
"shark's tooth", and it looks like tiny spikes at regular
intervals on
high contrast edges.
It's a regular, stepped displacement (on the y axis of a landscape
scan)
of pixels which repeats every 4-5 pixels. It is most visible on high
contrast edges, but occurs
I also would like to put a word of support for Nikonscan here. I use
LS2000 and Nikonscan 2.5.1. I have tried Vuescan but just can't get it to
do anything better than Nikonscan (EXCEPT reduce jaggies) so I continue to
use Nikonscan. There has been a lot of negative discussion about
Julian wrote:
I also would like to put a word of support for Nikonscan
here. I use LS2000 and Nikonscan 2.5.1. I have tried
Vuescan but just can't get it to do anything better than
Nikonscan (EXCEPT reduce jaggies) so I continue to use
Nikonscan. There has been a lot of negative
"Dave King" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean jaggies are all through the image, or along the edges?
The jaggies are through the entire image but are most noticeable on high
contrast edges within the image. By "edge" I presume you mean the outer
boundary of the entire image. The jaggies
"Dave King" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean jaggies are all through the image, or along the edges?
The jaggies are through the entire image but are most noticeable on
high
contrast edges within the image. By "edge" I presume you mean the
outer
boundary of the entire image. The
Dave wrote:
I don't see significant differences in grain at the print level
between 100 speed negs and chromes, and print level is all I really
care about.
Really??! In the scans I see a huge difference between say Superia 100
and Sensia II 100. There's a *much* bigger difference when you go
forward (off list) to me the Coolscan 4000 review mentioned
in this thread or point me to an archive where I can find it?
Thanks,
Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Dave King" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon Coo
Dave wrote:
I don't see significant differences in grain at the print level
between 100 speed negs and chromes, and print level is all I really
care about.
Really??! In the scans I see a huge difference between say Superia
100
and Sensia II 100. There's a *much* bigger difference when
Rob wrote:
The detail in the skies tend to "blow out" in Nikonscan with the
LS30 since
it only works with 8 bit data - this has the side effect of reducing
apparent
grain in the sky. Unfortunately Nikonscan is useless for me since I
get
jaggies with it, so I have to use Vuescan. I may be
Dave wrote:
Nikonscan's CM works as well as possible, with a near perfect match to
the result in Photoshop. Also Nikonscan does the best color
corrections out of the box of anything I've seen, on chromes and negs.
And, as I noted previously, the sharpening algorithm it uses is very
good.
Er,
Dave wrote:
Nikonscan's CM works as well as possible, with a near perfect match
to
the result in Photoshop. Also Nikonscan does the best color
corrections out of the box of anything I've seen, on chromes and
negs.
And, as I noted previously, the sharpening algorithm it uses is
very
good.
At 04:11 PM 7/04/01 +, you wrote:
Jeremy
Please take a real sharp slide ( glassles) and select the auto focus in
the middle of the picture and scan the slide ( standard mode)
Move the auto focus setting out from the middle against the side of the
picture and scan.
Compare the information
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:07:11 +0930 Mark T. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Eeek. I thought grain-aliasing and film resolution was covered in
either lesson 1 or 2 when you do Filmscanning 101..! :)
When I first came across this, and began to suspect it was an aliasing
phenomenon, I was unable
neg film
scanned in the LS-30. For the time being at least I'll take the
grain, aliasing and all.
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
On Sat, 07
Dave wrote:
It seems to me from eyeball guessing that my LS-30 is resolving grain
in 100 ISO films at roughly 40-80% distortion, which looks pretty bad
on the monitor at 100% view. 800 speed color neg film does much
better at what I would guess to be roughly 25% distortion.
I presume you're
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Dave: Please explain what process you are using to get from negs or trans
to a 24x36 ( I assume photographic) print? What scan DPI, print DPI, print
process, etc.
Thanks.
Mike M.
Dave King wrote:
Tony,
You're to be commended for bringing this problem to our attention.
I've mulled it over a
Rob wrote:
Dave wrote:
It seems to me from eyeball guessing that my LS-30 is resolving
grain
in 100 ISO films at roughly 40-80% distortion, which looks pretty
bad
on the monitor at 100% view. 800 speed color neg film does much
better at what I would guess to be roughly 25% distortion.
I
lmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
Dave: Please explain what process you are using to get from negs or
trans
to a 24x36 ( I assume photographic) print? What scan DPI, print DPI,
print
process, etc.
Thanks.
Mike M.
Dave King wrote:
Tony,
You're to be commended fo
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
| I just resubscribed to the list today after months of ISP problems. Would
| someone please forward (off list) to me the Coolscan 4000 review mentioned
| in this thread or point me to an
At 10:06 PM 6/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
Review of the new Nikon CoolScan 4000 at the Imaging Resource Newsletter:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/
Interesting article, but I start to question it when I read:
quote
In all our prior film scanner reviews, the highest resolution we'd
"Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render the scanner useless
to
all intents and purposes.
Have you tried Vuescan? Does it work?
Rob
The latest release of Vuescan is supposed to support the 4000.
Tom
"Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render the scanner
useless
to
all intents and purposes.
Have you tried Vuescan? Does it work?
Rob
Rob Geraghty wrote:
"Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render the scanner useless
to
all intents and purposes.
Have you tried Vuescan? Does it work?
Yes, it works quickly and (so far) reliably. Howver, I have difficulties with
slides.
Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness
I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results.
Best Regards
Mikael Risedal
From: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanne
slides.
Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness
I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results.
Best Regards
Mikael Risedal
From: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanne
slides.
Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness
I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results.
Best Regards
Mikael Risedal
From: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanne
Vuescan's "Clean" option on the Filters tab is the ICE control.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
|
|
slides.
Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness
I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results.
Best Regards
Mikael Risedal
From: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanne
To get to VueScan's ICE equivalent use any cleaning mode. To get to the ICE GEM
equivalent go to the medium or high cleaning modes.
Gordon
Jeremy Brookfield wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
"Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render
- Original Message -
From: "Gordon Tassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
To get to VueScan's ICE equivalent use any cleaning mode. To get to the
ICE GEM
equ
the Nikon CoolScan 4000
|
| - Original Message -
| From: "Gordon Tassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:06 PM
| Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
|
|
| To get to VueScan's ICE equivalent use any cleaning mode.
"Larry Berman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Review of the new Nikon CoolScan 4000 at the Imaging Resource Newsletter:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/
It reads more like a promotion than a review. The fact that they've never
looked
at the Polaroid 4000 or the Artix 4000 amazes me. To
34 matches
Mail list logo
