THANKS:Re: filmscanners: Best Buy for $500 or so
Thanks, Art. The Minolta and a refurb Nikon LS-30 were the ones that most jumped out at me. Dave At 05:05 PM 4/27/01 -0700, you wrote: If that's $500 US, I suggest you consider the Canon FS-2710 or Minolta Dimage Dual II, both under $500 new. Used or refurb, you might find a Nikon LS-30, which has only one advantage I can think of, which is digital ICE, a method for suppressing dirt and scratches on the surface of color or chromographic (color film based) BW films (doesn't work on regular BW negs or very well on Kodachrome.) The Canon and Nikon use a SCSI interface, the Minolta a USB. Image quality is quite similar overall. The Canon and Nikon use a 2700 dpi CDC, the Minolta 2820 dpi. Art DeVries wrote: Sorry if this is a often asked question, but what 35mm film scanner does the list recommend for $500 or so? Refurbished units don't scare me if they have a warranty. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Microtek 1850S drivers
In a message dated 4/27/2001 5:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Vuescan support the 1850S? It's possible that it will work with VueScan. It's an old 1800 dpi film scanner, and it may work with the standard Microtek scsi command set. One thing to try is: 1) Delete vuescan.ini 2) Run VueScan 3) Turn on Files|Output log file 4) Exit VueScan 5) Run VueScan 6) Press the Preview button 7) Exit VueScan 8) E-mail vuescan.log to me Thanks, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
In a message dated 4/28/2001 6:39:14 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the focus location in vuescan? It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit, 2700 ppi settings. As in 64bit is far better? I looked at the code, and I think I can see the problem. I've added this to my list of things to fix. Thanks for finding this. Cool! BTW I think I'll have to go back to Adobe RGB from ColormatchRGB in Vuescan. The cherry red colours and oversaturated reds are too hard to correct. On my LS30 and screen, ColormatchRGB just doesn't work with red. And the reds don't look right on the monitor at work either. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
JF Mahony wrote: i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but what kind. If you want to freeze action, try Kodak Supra 400 which is supposed to be optimised for scanning. Rob (I haven't had the chance to try it yet myself)
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Art wrote: In fact out steadfast Kodachrome, which has very good dark keeping properties, fades quite rapidly in bright light-- I'm speaking of losses of dye density within minutes under a projector bulb illumination. Ektachromes, on the other hand fare better under bright lighting, but have poorer dark keeping properties. Having done quite a few Kodachromes that were over 50 years old, I can testify to Art's assessment. Have found no serious problems with 30-year-old Ektachrome (other than its inherent contrastiness, which sometimes challenges the DR of my scanner), but the colors *don't* seem to be as bright as I remember. I've also found that some dust on very old slides seems particularly resistant to removal, as if it were fused to the slide. Frankly, as long as I have a competent spot-retouching program I'm reluctant to clean old slides with *anything* but a soft brush and air. But the occasional thumbprint--more likely to be on negs than mounted slides--is enough to send me running for help. :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Art wrote: These same companies that immediately offer free repairs or replacement when a product doesn't meet functionality after minimal usage? To their everlasting credit, Acer *does* in fact replace, rather than repair, defective Scanwits with new ones. At least in the US, as I know firsthand. Given the 6-8 week turnaround of repairs, and the too-many-to-count horror stories of returning the same defective scanner, I'm surprised more manufacturers don't do the same thing. Seems to me that Satisfied Customers are the best advertising a manufacturer can have. Especially with Lists like this one in existence! :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Best Buy for $500 or so
At the risk of being self-contradictory, I'd suggest you toss Acer Scanwit (2720S and 2740) into the mix for comparisons. It's a bit quirkey and can occasionally drive you up the wall and across the ceiling, but it also does an very good job on well-exposed film, particularly slides, and is fairly easy to use. The 2740 also has IR, which has gotten mixed reviews but has been spoken highly of by at least one user on this list (I've used the 2720S for about a year). Prices are about $400US for the 2700S and $500US for the 2740. Best regards, and good luck--LRA --Original Message-- From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] If that's $500 US, I suggest you consider the Canon FS-2710 or Minolta Dimage Dual II, both under $500 new. Used or refurb, you might find a Nikon LS-30, which has only one advantage I can think of, which is digital ICE, a method for suppressing dirt and scratches on the surface of color or chromographic (color film based) BW films (doesn't work on regular BW negs or very well on Kodachrome.) The Canon and Nikon use a SCSI interface, the Minolta a USB. Image quality is quite similar overall. The Canon and Nikon use a 2700 dpi CDC, the Minolta 2820 dpi. Art DeVries wrote: Sorry if this is a often asked question, but what 35mm film scanner does the list recommend for $500 or so? Refurbished units don't scare me if they have a warranty. Dave --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
filmscanners: OT: Mfgr's Support (was:Microtek 1850S drivers
Hersch wrote: I told a power tool company to stop sending me their catalog after they discontinued selling the proprietary batteries for a drill immediately after they stopped selling that model. A lot of letters of that type might help (Of course one lonely one won't do it). I've written my share of letters (could anyone doubt it?), and wish you'd shared the name of that power tool. It could save me the trouble of writing another letter--after all, I didn't find this work-station under a cabage leaf! ;-) The manufacturers that have supported their products for 50 years and more are getting fewer (Rolls-Royce is one of them; Sears *used* to be), as mergers and/or younger managers and bean-counters take over Operations. If they're not responsive--and too many of them aren't--the best way to change their world-view is to avoid their products. And naming names is one way to accomplish that, IMHO. :-) Another 2-cents worth--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: Mfgr's Support (was:Microtek 1850S drivers
Hersch wrote: I told a power tool company to stop sending me their catalog after they discontinued selling the proprietary batteries for a drill immediately after they stopped selling that model. A lot of letters of that type might help (Of course one lonely one won't do it). Would that be B D? They still do make the 8.4 volt battery, but you have to order it from the factory and by the time it gets here, you're likely to have forgot where the dang drill is! Edwin
filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.0 and Win98 not SE and LS2000
I am using Nikonscan 3.0 with my LS2000. I was doubtful as to whether it would work with Win98 not SE, but it does, apparently flawlessly touch wood (apart from same bugs/problems others have noted). So it seems the only reason Nikon require Win98SE is for the firewire connection. Ver 3.0 is a great improvement in many ways on 2.5.1, once you get used to the initially annoying tool palette. As someone else noted, no more blown highlights, and the histogram is much more accurate at the low end - where I had constant problems with 2.5.1. One interesting point - on mine at least the ver 3 ICE produces much more softening than the ver 2 ICE did. I don't know why this would be so. Using sharpen helps significantly. I haven't seen jaggies yet, but I haven't looked hard yet either. If I activate curves the whole thing slows down greatly, which it did not do under the old version. Another small mystery. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: LS4000, LS2000 and sharpness
This is exactly what I have discovered I need to do with my LS2000 - set the focus point closer to the edge of the film. The small depth of field on the LS2000 is the greatest problem I have found with this scanner, and the main reason I will be nervous of the LS4000. Julian At 22:43 27/04/01, Mikael wrote: Ed Thanks to you and a scratched film I have discovered how to have the best resolution from the LS4000 scanner and curved film problem. The imported thing is to put the focus area right in the picture area. After some experiment with the scratched film I found out that the best way to have optimal resolution from the scanner are to move the focus area half way out from the middle of the picture to the side. This means that the depth of field now cover the middle and corner better and the picture now looks equal sharp overall. If I put the focus area in the middle ( standard mode) the sides and corner are not so sharp as at the middle of the picture. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
This question is for Ed, and any other program-savy people who want to answer. Since dust is always white on negs and always black on slides, while noise is usually lighter and grain is usually darker than the surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the cleaning algorithms? This suddenly seems so obvious as I experience the problems more, and I wonder what I'm missing that it isn't more easy to deal with. (?) Example: red pixels in sky colors, when it isn't sunset, green pixels in skin-tones and shadow tones at mid-day. It's very perplexing, because I'm pretty sure my scanner or its software is actually seeing or at least interpreting those pixels. I could, of course, be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have grain in blue skies and, I think, in the black skies in night shots (but viewable only if I lighten the sky to lighter than pitch black). I've had to set Vuescan on Clean-heavy to prevent it. Other than that, in color and exposure it has worked well. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 6:57 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners | JF Mahony wrote: | i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i | shoot | a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi | multy | speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme | highlights. | i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print | but | what kind. | | If you want to freeze action, try Kodak Supra 400 which is supposed to be | optimised for scanning. | | Rob | (I haven't had the chance to try it yet myself) | |
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Wishful thinking - how many customers would a manufacturer lose by not offering replacement v. repair? How many of us have selected a scanner based on having replacement v. repair available? Very few IMHO. Maris - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 7:40 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides | Art wrote: | | These same companies that immediately offer free | repairs or replacement when a product doesn't meet functionality after | minimal usage? | | To their everlasting credit, Acer *does* in fact replace, rather than | repair, defective Scanwits with new ones. At least in the US, as I know | firsthand. | | Given the 6-8 week turnaround of repairs, and the too-many-to-count horror | stories of returning the same defective scanner, I'm surprised more | manufacturers don't do the same thing. Seems to me that Satisfied Customers | are the best advertising a manufacturer can have. Especially with Lists like | this one in existence! :-) | | Best regards--LRA | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
In a message dated 4/28/2001 10:37:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not wanting to reply with an obvious observation, I would have thought picking the 64bit option simply enabled scanning the IR, and there for Hersch's improved dust removal. Can you elaborate on what you found? Is this a problem with the LS-30 only? I looked at the code again, and now I can't see anything wrong with it. I'll have to do some testing to see why this might be happening. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Ed writes ... In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit, 2700 ppi settings. I looked at the code, and I think I can see the problem. I've added this to my list of things to fix. Thanks for finding this. Not wanting to reply with an obvious observation, I would have thought picking the 64bit option simply enabled scanning the IR, and there for Hersch's improved dust removal. Can you elaborate on what you found? Is this a problem with the LS-30 only? shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Ed writes ... In a message dated 4/28/2001 6:39:14 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the focus location in vuescan? It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so. It would seem a user could crop a small rectangle and ask for a manual focus ... then crop preferentially and scan with automatic focus disabled(?) I've never been able to verify if this works ... even while my LS-2000 goes through the motions, the manual focus number doesn't update. This is one of the few features I like about Nikonscan ... an ability to zoom in, ask for a preview, ask for a focus, and ask again for a preview. You get to realize visual and numeric feedback, and the preview scans take only seconds. The visual feedback and previews aren't all that necessary ... you simply learn to trust the focusing, and I expect it would add considerable programming. The numeric feedback IS very useful, allowing you to realize differences from one area of the film and another, and therefore to average the numbers (or pick a preference) and enter the number in the manual focus dialog box. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
I forgot to mention before that in NikonScan 3 and Siverfast 5 can the user select the focus spot manually ( move the focus area out against the side of the film .) Best regards Mikael Risedal _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Have found no serious problems with 30-year-old Ektachrome (other than its inherent contrastiness, which sometimes challenges the DR of my scanner), but the colors *don't* seem to be as bright as I remember. But then, it could be your memory that has lost brilliance over the years. :-) I could not resist saying that Lynm; you left too big an opening to ignore. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides Art wrote: In fact out steadfast Kodachrome, which has very good dark keeping properties, fades quite rapidly in bright light-- I'm speaking of losses of dye density within minutes under a projector bulb illumination. Ektachromes, on the other hand fare better under bright lighting, but have poorer dark keeping properties. Having done quite a few Kodachromes that were over 50 years old, I can testify to Art's assessment. Have found no serious problems with 30-year-old Ektachrome (other than its inherent contrastiness, which sometimes challenges the DR of my scanner), but the colors *don't* seem to be as bright as I remember. I've also found that some dust on very old slides seems particularly resistant to removal, as if it were fused to the slide. Frankly, as long as I have a competent spot-retouching program I'm reluctant to clean old slides with *anything* but a soft brush and air. But the occasional thumbprint--more likely to be on negs than mounted slides--is enough to send me running for help. :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000. Tom I forgot to mention before that in NikonScan 3 and Siverfast 5 can the user select the focus spot manually ( move the focus area out against the side of the film .) Best regards Mikael Risedal
Re: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
This suddenly seems so obvious as I experience the problems more, and I wonder what I'm missing that it isn't more easy to deal with. (?) Example: red pixels in sky colors, when it isn't sunset, green pixels in skin-tones How does a computer know that the blue in your picture is from the sky? Or that the red in your picture is a sunset and not a sportscar? :-) -Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=113369
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Get some sleep, Ed. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:39 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII | In a message dated 4/28/2001 10:37:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | Not wanting to reply with an obvious observation, I would have | thought picking the 64bit option simply enabled scanning the IR, and | there for Hersch's improved dust removal. Can you elaborate on what | you found? Is this a problem with the LS-30 only? | | I looked at the code again, and now I can't see anything wrong with | it. I'll have to do some testing to see why this might be happening. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick |
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Tom Scales writes ... But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000. Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to know for sure ... except to point out we've always been confronted with similar tradeoffs. The best enlargers have always offered diffused illumination or better contrast with point source illumination. However, to take best advantage of point source illumination and potential edge sharpness we needed better resolution. And then, we were confronted with a need for glass carriers because of the ^inherent^ loss of depth of focus (a law of physics). With regard to SS4000 vs LS-4000, there are analogies here. A choice of illumination, the optimum optics and a subsequent need for decreased depth-of-focus. For a buyer the question which remains is which type of illumination suits your exposures and films best. Independent of the need for IR, an educated guess would be, for negatives and better color gamut, you might opt for increased edge contrast and the Nikon (and flat film) ... but for an all around better solution, negatives or slides, the Polaroid. What remains is an A-B comparison for both print film and a slide, of the same 2mm area, Nikon vs Polaroid (... Tony? ...) my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
You're very welcome. I'm in no hurry to reinstall NS, either 2.5 or 3.0 Hersch At 03:26 AM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit, 2700 ppi settings. I looked at the code, and I think I can see the problem. I've added this to my list of things to fix. Thanks for finding this. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris wrote: I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have grain in blue skies and, My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
All points well taken. My whole point of switching from the Polaroid to the Nikon, though, was the I wanted the roll film carrier. Now, what I am reading seems to imply that I have to manually adjust the focus on each individual frame. Perhaps I am misreading that, and a generic focus at a middle spot would work, but why didn't Nikon do their software right then? I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36 properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film adapter? I might as well keep doing them 6 at a time. Bottom line, it feels like a scanner that is late to the market and was rushed. Given time and releases of the software, it might be an incredible scanner, but for now, I'll wait. Tom P.S. David, hint hint, give me the roll film adapter and I won't defect. Tom Scales writes ... But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000. Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to know for sure ... except to point out we've always been confronted with similar tradeoffs. The best enlargers have always offered diffused illumination or better contrast with point source illumination. However, to take best advantage of point source illumination and potential edge sharpness we needed better resolution. And then, we were confronted with a need for glass carriers because of the ^inherent^ loss of depth of focus (a law of physics). With regard to SS4000 vs LS-4000, there are analogies here. A choice of illumination, the optimum optics and a subsequent need for decreased depth-of-focus. For a buyer the question which remains is which type of illumination suits your exposures and films best. Independent of the need for IR, an educated guess would be, for negatives and better color gamut, you might opt for increased edge contrast and the Nikon (and flat film) ... but for an all around better solution, negatives or slides, the Polaroid. What remains is an A-B comparison for both print film and a slide, of the same 2mm area, Nikon vs Polaroid (... Tony? ...) my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: No batchscanning with Vs7.0 Mac?
Hi Rob That's it. I try batchscanning rawfiles to make crops (and to save time) For the moment, I must admit that trying a kind of Vuescan's advanced workflow makes me late. I guess I'll try to build an automation from an external dedicated software. But I'm sure Vuescan is not scriptable. Didier (Vuescan v7.015 on Mac)
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I'm fond of Supra 400 and use it a lot. Recently I've also been shooting Provia 100F when there is enough light. These films are apples and oranges but Supra 400 is real 'chunky' compared to the Provia. It is interesting to do a max zoom on a 4000 ppi file from a 35 mm frame to see what the pixels look like up close. Provia has much cleaner, uniform coloration among sets of max zoomed pixels than the Supra 400 does. This shows up in output in prints from the Provia being more 'sparkly' or 'luminous'. It's kind of academic as I photograph dogs in available light so 100 speed film is a significant hindrance in early and late light where I find most of my interesting pictures. Based on the results I'm getting with Provia I'll be using it more, I'll just teach the dogs to be stationary. -JimD At 10:18 PM 4/28/01 +0200, you wrote: Maris wrote: I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have grain in blue skies and, My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would seem a user could crop a small rectangle and ask for a manual focus ... then crop preferentially and scan with automatic focus disabled(?) I've never been able to verify if this works ... even while my LS-2000 goes through the motions, the manual focus number doesn't update. I always found it easiest in VueScan just to let focus set up in auto and then switch to manual and alter the focus setting by an experimental amount -- my recollection is that it was .040 one way or the other. Joel W. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI. Maris - Original Message - From: Vladislav Jurco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners Maris wrote: I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have grain in blue skies and, My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI. Vladislav Jurco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Maybe you guys need to exchange a slide or neg and try scanning exactly the same piece of film and compare the result? Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36 properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film adapter? Possibly Ed could modify vuescan to focus on a specific offset in the frame. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since dust is always white on negs and always black on slides, while noise is usually lighter and grain is usually darker than the surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the cleaning algorithms? If you could characterise the noise in a particular CCD you could remove it using a fourier transform. I doubt it would work with grain aliasing and definitely not with dust because dust is too grossly random. But it ought to work effectively on CCD noise. Noise removal under specific circumstances like shadows or highlights might be a good thing to preserve details in other areas. Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so. Thanks Ed! I was thinking of all the Nikon scanners, which supposedly have a capability to focus on a specific point - I have an LS30. So far I don't think I've had significant focus problems except with the ends of some film strips in the strip feeder. Rob
Re: filmscanners: No batchscanning with Vs7.0 Mac?
Didier wrote: That's it. I try batchscanning rawfiles to make crops (and to save time) Hm. I'll have to try batch cropping from raw files. I wouldn't have thought of it! Rob
filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV Focus
I have posted on the list a couple of times that I find no lack of depth of field on the Nikon Coolscan IV - LS-40. After seeing several posts that question the depth of field on the LS-4000, I decided to perform an experiment with the Coolscan IV and post the results found here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=117469 This is a comparison of the corner portion of a Kodachrome slide scanned using three separate focus points on my Coolscan IV using Nikon Scan 3.0 with the Digital ICE off. I selected an old slide of no particular artistic value. The slide shows about average curvature in the mount for Kodachrome. The first image shows the corner section with the autofocus point at the center default. The second image shows the results moving the autofocus point to the lower center of the edge. The third image shows the autofocus point dead on the flower pedal in the corner enlarged. The whole slide scan is shown as the fourth image with the corner enlarged highlighted. The values of the manual focus slider in the tool pallet of Nikon Scan 3.0 were 101, 99 and 96 respectively. I saw no difference in the quality of the focus with the raw scan data imported into Photoshop 6.0 scaled to 300%. Any larger scaling of the images showed pixels. The JPEGs posted show what I saw at a 300% scaling of the raw image. The LS-4000 may have different optics or the greater ppi of the LS-400 may show more critical focus but the 2900 ppi of the Coolscan IV does not show any focus problems to me. Douglas F. Landrum Laguna Beach, California [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
That would make the buy decision for me, since I do all my scanning with Vuescan now. Tom Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36 properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film adapter? Possibly Ed could modify vuescan to focus on a specific offset in the frame. Rob
