Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Ron Carlson]

In this context, you are right on Denise. Regards, Ron
- Original Message -
From: "Denise E. Kissinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI


> The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that
> it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need.
>
> Denise
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
>
>
> > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very
> interesting
> > reading,
> > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a
> > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens
> > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is
> > plainly ridiculous
> > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a
good
> > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests,
> >
> > paul
> >
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
> >
>

RE: filmscanners: Slverfast AI discount upgrade

[Johnny Johnson]

At 11:55 PM 11/1/01 -0500, John Hayward wrote:

>Johnny:
>
>Read that again;-).
>
>The $10.00 upgrade posted appears to be for SilverFast SE 5.x upgrade to
>SilverFast 5.5 SE.


Hi John,

Guess that proves I'm blind in one eye and can't see out of the 
other!  Now, I wonder what David's excuse is?  ;-)

Later,
Johnny

__
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: filmscanners: Signing up a freind

[Ken Durling]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:29:08 -0600, you wrote:

>Go to Tony Sleep's website and sign up there:
>
>http://www.halftone.co.uk/
>


P.S. I couldn't resist, told my friend he could sign up by going to
sleep!

Oh, you've heard that one before . . . never min . . 


Ken Durling



Photo.net portfolio: 

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251

Re: filmscanners: Signing up a freind

[Ken Durling]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:29:08 -0600, you wrote:

>Go to Tony Sleep's website and sign up there:
>
>http://www.halftone.co.uk/
>
>Maris


Ah yes.  Thanks, Maris.  Mind went blank!


Ken

Re: filmscanners: Signing up a freind

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Go to Tony Sleep's website and sign up there:

http://www.halftone.co.uk/

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:23 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Signing up a freind


| HI folks - 
| 
| I can't seem to find the e-mail address and subscription instructions
| for this list - I have someone who wants to sign up.  Could some kind
| soul shoot them to me? 
| 
| Thanks!
| 
| 
| Ken Durling
| 
| 
| 
| Photo.net portfolio: 
| 
| http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
| 
| 

filmscanners: Signing up a freind

[Ken Durling]

HI folks - 

I can't seem to find the e-mail address and subscription instructions
for this list - I have someone who wants to sign up.  Could some kind
soul shoot them to me? 

Thanks!


Ken Durling



Photo.net portfolio: 

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Sorry, Rob - you lost me there.  What do you mean?

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan


| Maris wrote:
| >That is my understanding - consecutively numbered files only.
| 
| Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to different
| values?  If so, can't you use identical filenames?
| 
| Rob
| 
| 
| Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| http://wordweb.com
| 
| 
| 

RE: filmscanners: Slverfast AI discount upgrade

[John Hayward]

Johnny:

Read that again;-).

The $10.00 upgrade posted appears to be for SilverFast SE 5.x upgrade to
SilverFast 5.5 SE. 

As of 11:50 EST 11/1/01, it would appear that Lasersoft has yet to post
the Polaroid SilverFast AI Upgrade 5.x to SilverFast AI 5.5 info.

John


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Johnny Johnson
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Slverfast AI discount upgrade

At 05:58 PM 11/1/01 -0500, David wrote:

>The $10 Silverfast AI upgrade has been posted to Lasersoft web site.
Please
>be patient as they are moving their office and probably will not start
>fulfilling until Monday. The discount applies to AI only, not HDR

Hi David,

Is The Silverfast upgrade page showing incorrect information or am I 
reading it incorrectly?  I read it to say that the upgrade from SE to
5.5 
is $10 but from Ai to 5.5 is $45.

Thanks,
Johnny

__
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?

[Larry Berman]

Hi Rob,

You failed to mention which camera brand you're using. If Nikon, all their 
lenses are color matched. On other forums, like the D1/D1x, it's one of the 
things that come up for discussion from time to time.

Larry


>Sorry about the OT question, but I was wondering if anyone on the list could
>suggest forums where I could ask questions about lenses?  I'm getting a
>little frustrated by the lack of sharpness in photos taken with a Sigma
>28-80 f3.5-5.6 zoom, and I'm wondering just how much difference it will
>make to my 35mm scans if the lenses were better.


***
Larry Berman

http://BermanGraphics.com

***

filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?

[Rob Geraghty]

Sorry about the OT question, but I was wondering if anyone on the list could
suggest forums where I could ask questions about lenses?  I'm getting a
little frustrated by the lack of sharpness in photos taken with a Sigma
28-80 f3.5-5.6 zoom, and I'm wondering just how much difference it will
make to my 35mm scans if the lenses were better.

Basically I just don't know how much visible improvement there would be
in 2700ppi scans from say a decent Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Contax lens.

I get significantly sharper results with my 50mm f1.7 lens, but it seems
to have colour aberration problems (red aberration).

I'm trying to avoid garbage-in-garbage out as much as possible in the scans.
:)

Replies offlist would be appreciated.  Thanks!

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Denise E. Kissinger]

The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that
it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need.

Denise


- Original Message -
From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI


> well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very
interesting
> reading,
> but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a
> Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens
> to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is
> plainly ridiculous
> I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good
> pro 35mm camera before doing such tests,
>
> paul
>
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
>

Re: filmscanners: Slverfast AI discount upgrade

[Johnny Johnson]

At 05:58 PM 11/1/01 -0500, David wrote:

>The $10 Silverfast AI upgrade has been posted to Lasersoft web site. Please
>be patient as they are moving their office and probably will not start
>fulfilling until Monday. The discount applies to AI only, not HDR

Hi David,

Is The Silverfast upgrade page showing incorrect information or am I 
reading it incorrectly?  I read it to say that the upgrade from SE to 5.5 
is $10 but from Ai to 5.5 is $45.

Thanks,
Johnny

__
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Rob Geraghty]

Maris wrote:
>That is my understanding - consecutively numbered files only.

Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to different
values?  If so, can't you use identical filenames?

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 scanner 'review'

[markthomasz]

Thanks for that Tom.

> > Unit has no eject button which is annoying - 
> Yes, the partial solution is to switch it on and off, works like eject

My concern would be that I would guess turning the scanner on and off needlessly will 
somewhat reduce its lifespan, and puts needless load on the electronics.  Not a big 
issue, just a silly design decision IMO.
 
> > scan app.  Does an awful lot of stuff in memory, so 512K RAM at least 
> I am using it with 256MB, for one full resolution scan works without disk
> swapping (Win2000)

Hmm - the test machine was also Win 2000 & 256M, and it did a lot of diskwork - maybe 
poorly setup..?
 
> >.. more closely, the noise was pretty obvious.  
> If you are working on underexposed slides you should change exposure by 1 or 2
> stops in FilmGet. In this case you will get normal noise level.

So do you mean that the noise level drops, *relative* to shadow detail?  The scan I 
got was not at all washed out from overcompensation for the underexposure, so I 
(perhaps rashly) assumed that if the exposure was run down far enough to get rid of 
the noise, too much shadow detail would go with it..  Certainly when I tried to adjust 
the final image's gamma (post-scan), that's exactly what happened.

> I will show on Monday some examples. 
Look forward to seeing them. :-)

Regards, mt

This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

[SKID Photography]

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> SKID Photography wrote:
>
>  > Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th
> and 250th of a second.  Will will see that
>  > there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
>  >
>  > As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that
> manufacturers fudged them.
>  >
>  >
>  > Harvey Ferdscneider
>  > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>  >
>
> Are the faster shutter speed images in each case darker from the slower
> in your experience?

Yes

> If the factor is the flash, as you suggest, wouldn't that mean the
> duration is more in the order of 1/60th to 1/125th of a second or so, or
> that the output is otherwise being affected by the shutter speed
> timing/synching or whathaveyou?

Yes, this is what I have been saying.

> This seems like a very great
> discrepancy from the specs.  Since I do very little studio flash
> photography, preferring to work with static lighting for studio work,
> I've never tested my flashes under conditions which were well enough
> controlled to know for sure what is going on.

It is possible, with a dedicated camera/flash ttl auto thyristor system, that the 
flash unit will compensate
for the faster shutter speeds with more power output.

With a studio flash you can just use a flash meter and measure the difference in light 
capture at different
shutter speeds.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394

[Pat Perez]

Here you go:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/hardware_overvie
w.asp

Firewire is supported in both Home and Pro versions of XP.

Pat

- Original Message -
From: "Ian Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394


> Mark,
>
> Sometimes we all need our hand held and for me this is a time.I have
> read in some review although forgotten where,  that the Home edition
> does NOT include IEEE1394.   Now you are still saying that it does.
> However like me you do not provide a reference.  So lets leave it like
> that until someone else makes a confirming "verifiable" post.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ian
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:33 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394
>
>
> > >> You have quoted a post which I missed.   I looked at the
> > >> site you listed but can see nothing listed for IEEE1394.
> > >> Please advise where you saw that XP Home support this.
> >
> > That's the point - there is no difference between Pro and Home where
> > Firewire is concerned. It's supported on both. If any particular
> device
> > isn't supported, it's because it needs 3rd-party drivers, and it won't
> > be supported on either Pro or Home without them.
> >
> > Mark
> >


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: filmscanners: VueScan and Mac OS 9.x

[Mikael Risedal]

Try latest Vuescan 7.2. Works fine with my G4 and LS 4000 firewire.Read and 
follow Eds recommendations regarding Nikon extensions and there are no 
problems. The cleaning function has a bug and does not work when I tried it.
Mikael Risedal



>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and Mac OS 9.x
>Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:40:55 -
>
>
>Hello ,
>
>Has anyone out there managed to get VueScan 7.1.25  ( or 7.1.26 ) working
>with the Nikon 4000 ED ?
>
>Ed has been very helpful , but i still cannot get VueScan running.
>
>If i leave the Nikon extensions in then VueScan does not even see the Nikon
>scanner , and
>if i disable the Nikon extensions then the Mac freezes when i launch
>VueScan.
>If i remove just the Nikon 4k extensions then the Mac will not finish
>booting and
>locks up , forcing a reset with the button the front with the Nikon powered
>off.
>
>Can anyone help please ?
>
>PS  If any replies off list please send to
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>so I can receive them at home , where the scanner is.
>
>Best Regards
>Eric


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 scanner 'review'

[tom]

Hi,
A few remarks:
> Unit has no eject button which is annoying - 
Yes, the partial solution is to switch it on and off, works like eject

> scan app.  Does an awful lot of stuff in memory, so 512K RAM at least 
I am using it with 256MB, for one full resolution scan works without disk
swapping (Win2000)

> Initially the scan looked 
> excellent - it dragged out more shadow detail than I had seen from this 
> slide before.  But when I dragged the curve up a bit to look at the detail 
> more closely, the noise was pretty obvious.  

If you are working on underexposed slides you should change exposure by 1 or 2
stops in FilmGet. In this case you will get normal noise level. Software
changes afterwards do not work same way. I will show on Monday some examples. 

Regards

Tom

PS
Sorry for the remark about SS400, I did not want to start a small war. In each
case FARE works very well with dust and scratches. I will put some examples on
my home page.




__
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets

[Austin Franklin]

I do use a piece of glass on top of the ClearFile film strip sheets...the
transparency adapter doesn't hold them flat!

I don't know that you could get that uniform a light source and/or a strong
enough light source with the method you describe.  Why not just get a
transparency adapter, or a scanner with a transparency adapter?

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Skip Williams
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 5:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
>
>
> Has anyone ever tried to lay the negatives onto the glass platen,
> cover them
> with another piece of glass to make them lay flat, and then shine
> a diffuse
> source of light over the scanner to shine through the negatives onto the
> scanner's CCD sensor?
>
> I know it's a transparancy scanner, but would this work?
>
> I tried just placing the negatives directly onto the glass platen and
> closing the white-backed cover.  I use a cheap Canon 1220U and it
> worked OK,
> but there was very little detail.
>
> Skip

filmscanners: Slverfast AI discount upgrade

[Hemingway, David J]

The $10 Silverfast AI upgrade has been posted to Lasersoft web site. Please
be patient as they are moving their office and probably will not start
fulfilling until Monday. The discount applies to AI only, not HDR

Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets

[Skip Williams]

Has anyone ever tried to lay the negatives onto the glass platen, cover them 
with another piece of glass to make them lay flat, and then shine a diffuse 
source of light over the scanner to shine through the negatives onto the 
scanner's CCD sensor?

I know it's a transparancy scanner, but would this work?

I tried just placing the negatives directly onto the glass platen and 
closing the white-backed cover.  I use a cheap Canon 1220U and it worked OK, 
but there was very little detail.

Skip



** I M P O R T A N T   R E P L Y   I N F O 
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list 
subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages addressed 
here.
***



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

That is my understanding - consecutively numbered files only.

The work-around would be to (temporarily) rename them so that all 3 sets are 
consecutively numbered - a program such as CKRename (freeware) at 
http://www.musicsucks.com/CKSoft/index.htm
will do this on a PC, and when you finish you can rename them back to what you want.

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Bloor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan


| Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote:
| 
| >"You can later batch-process these raw files by changing the "Device|Scan 
| >from" option to "Disk", and set the "Device|Frame numbers" option to 
| >1-N.  For instance, if you produce raw files named scan0001.tif, 
| >scan0002.tif, ..., scan098.tif, you can re-scan all these files without 
| >needing to insert the film again by setting the frame numbers to 1-98 and 
| >then using the "Scan" button."
| 
| I am doing this at the moment, but as I understand it, this will only let 
| me handle consecutively numbered files.  If I have, say, three films -
| 
|  1024-01.TIF to 1024-36.TIF
|  1025-01.TIF to 1025-36.TIF
|  1026-01.TIF to 1026-36.TIF
| 
| I have to initiate three separate Vuescan  jobs.  I would like to leave a 
| PC running overnight to process up to 200 frames at a time, without having 
| to rename all the scans to do it.
| 
| 
| 
| Mike Bloor

Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Mike Bloor]

Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote:

>"You can later batch-process these raw files by changing the "Device|Scan 
>from" option to "Disk", and set the "Device|Frame numbers" option to 
>1-N.  For instance, if you produce raw files named scan0001.tif, 
>scan0002.tif, ..., scan098.tif, you can re-scan all these files without 
>needing to insert the film again by setting the frame numbers to 1-98 and 
>then using the "Scan" button."

I am doing this at the moment, but as I understand it, this will only let 
me handle consecutively numbered files.  If I have, say, three films -

 1024-01.TIF to 1024-36.TIF
 1025-01.TIF to 1025-36.TIF
 1026-01.TIF to 1026-36.TIF

I have to initiate three separate Vuescan  jobs.  I would like to leave a 
PC running overnight to process up to 200 frames at a time, without having 
to rename all the scans to do it.



Mike Bloor

Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

You can do that.

>From the Help files, "Advanced Workflow Suggestions":

"You can later batch-process these raw files by changing the "Device|Scan from" option 
to "Disk", and set the "Device|Frame numbers" option to 1-N.  For instance, if you 
produce raw files named scan0001.tif, scan0002.tif, ..., scan098.tif, you can re-scan 
all these files without needing to insert the film again by setting the frame numbers 
to 1-98 and then using the "Scan" button."

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Bloor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:45 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan


| I know that I can leave Vuescan to process a complete film of raw TIFF 
| files into colour corrected, viewable TIFFs, JPEGs etc. by saying I want to 
| process disk files "-01+" and frames "1-36".
| 
| Is there anyway I can get Vuescan to process all the files in a directory 
| ?  e.g.  Take all the files in C:\RAW and process them into C:\DONE.  Then 
| 1234-01.TIF in C:\RAW would produce 1234.TIF and/or 1234.JPG in 
| C:\DONE.  This would allow me to leave a PC processing overnight.
| 
| Ed - if this isn't currently possible, could it be done ?
| Mike Bloor

Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394

[Bob Armstrong]

Ian wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> Sometimes we all need our hand held and for me this is a time.I have
> read in some review although forgotten where,  that the Home edition
> does NOT include IEEE1394.   Now you are still saying that it does.
> However like me you do not provide a reference.  So lets leave it like
> that until someone else makes a confirming "verifiable" post.


Mark wrote:

> > That's the point - there is no difference between Pro and Home where
> > Firewire is concerned. It's supported on both. If any particular
> device
> > isn't supported, it's because it needs 3rd-party drivers, and it won't
> > be supported on either Pro or Home without them.

Bill has written:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default.asp?url=/WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/hardware_install_pnp_device.asp

Or, try a search on the XP Home home page for ieee 1394 for other references

Bob

Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394

[Tom Scales]

OK, let's put this one to sleep.

I just threw my wife off her computer (I'll pay for that) and rebooted XP
Home (she's dual booting Me until she gets everything over).  I went into
Add Hardware and told it I would manually select the device.

Clear as day, there was a choice for an IEEE 1394 Controller.

So, Windows XP Home DEFINITELY includes drivers for Firewire.

Although this has already been beaten to death and there have been several
links to Microsoft's site showing it was posted, I can now personally
comfirm support.

Tom

From: "Ian Jackson"

> Mark,
>
> Sometimes we all need our hand held and for me this is a time.I have
> read in some review although forgotten where,  that the Home edition
> does NOT include IEEE1394.   Now you are still saying that it does.
> However like me you do not provide a reference.  So lets leave it like
> that until someone else makes a confirming "verifiable" post.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ian

Re: filmscanners: VueScan and Mac OS 9.x

[Bill Fernandez]

Eric--

On my Mac VueScan doesn't seem to see either of my Firewire scanners 
(Nikon LS4000ED, Microtek ScanMaker 8700).  Haven't yet played with 
extensions or anything fancy.

--Bill



At 2:40 PM + 1-11-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hello ,
>
>Has anyone out there managed to get VueScan 7.1.25  ( or 7.1.26 ) working
>with the Nikon 4000 ED ?
>
>Ed has been very helpful , but i still cannot get VueScan running.
>
>If i leave the Nikon extensions in then VueScan does not even see the Nikon
>scanner , and
>if i disable the Nikon extensions then the Mac freezes when i launch
>VueScan.
>If i remove just the Nikon 4k extensions then the Mac will not finish
>booting and
>locks up , forcing a reset with the button the front with the Nikon powered
>off.
>
>Can anyone help please ?
>
>PS  If any replies off list please send to
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>so I can receive them at home , where the scanner is.
>
>Best Regards
>Eric

-- 

==
Bill Fernandez  *  User Interface Architect  *  Bill Fernandez Design

(505) 346-3080  *  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *  http://billfernandez.com
==

Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets

[Bud]

I use an Epson Expression 636 Pro for full sheet contacts. Available from
the Epson store (refurb) for $399.

- Original Message -
From: "Jules" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:11 PM
Subject: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets


> subject that's been touched on this list before.
>
> i want to get a flat bed scanner specifically for making contact sheets
for
> 35mm film.  obviously it needs to be able to handle an 8x11
*transparency*.
> it does NOT need to have great color matching but does need a decent dpi.
>
> i have an epson precision 1200U with the transparency adapter which is
fine,
> but the scanning area for transparencies is very small (can fit jsut 4
(2x2)
> 35mm frames).
>
> other requirements: USB or SCSI and <$400
>
> any ideas?
>
> --
> j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m
> http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
>
>

filmscanners: SS40000 and pixilatted edges

[Andy Darlow]

I'm curious why scans of very sharp transparencies are exhibiting 
somewhat pixilated edges when scanning at almost any resolution with 
my SS4000, Mac 9.1OS, Pismo powerbook and Polacolor Insight 5.0.3.

Has anyone else seen this?

Also, what is that low/high quality box doing under the scan tab near 
the ppi choice?

Thanks,

Andy Darlow
-- 

Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394

[Ian Jackson]

Mark,

Sometimes we all need our hand held and for me this is a time.I have
read in some review although forgotten where,  that the Home edition
does NOT include IEEE1394.   Now you are still saying that it does.
However like me you do not provide a reference.  So lets leave it like
that until someone else makes a confirming "verifiable" post.

Kind regards,

Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394


> >> You have quoted a post which I missed.   I looked at the
> >> site you listed but can see nothing listed for IEEE1394.
> >> Please advise where you saw that XP Home support this.
>
> That's the point - there is no difference between Pro and Home where
> Firewire is concerned. It's supported on both. If any particular
device
> isn't supported, it's because it needs 3rd-party drivers, and it won't
> be supported on either Pro or Home without them.
>
> Mark
>

filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan

[Mike Bloor]

I know that I can leave Vuescan to process a complete film of raw TIFF 
files into colour corrected, viewable TIFFs, JPEGs etc. by saying I want to 
process disk files "-01+" and frames "1-36".

Is there anyway I can get Vuescan to process all the files in a directory 
?  e.g.  Take all the files in C:\RAW and process them into C:\DONE.  Then 
1234-01.TIF in C:\RAW would produce 1234.TIF and/or 1234.JPG in 
C:\DONE.  This would allow me to leave a PC processing overnight.

Ed - if this isn't currently possible, could it be done ?
Mike Bloor

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 11/1/2001 9:30:06 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> I suppose my point (question) was ... how does just locking the exposure
>  make all panoramic frames accurate?

Take a look in the Color tab when you lock the exposure - it locks
these too.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

filmscanners: VueScan and Mac OS 9.x

[eric . calderwood]

Hello ,

Has anyone out there managed to get VueScan 7.1.25  ( or 7.1.26 ) working
with the Nikon 4000 ED ?

Ed has been very helpful , but i still cannot get VueScan running.

If i leave the Nikon extensions in then VueScan does not even see the Nikon
scanner , and
if i disable the Nikon extensions then the Mac freezes when i launch
VueScan.
If i remove just the Nikon 4k extensions then the Mac will not finish
booting and
locks up , forcing a reset with the button the front with the Nikon powered
off.

Can anyone help please ?

PS  If any replies off list please send to 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

so I can receive them at home , where the scanner is.

Best Regards
Eric

RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available

[michael shaffer]

Ed writes ...

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I was hoping you had added panoramic functionality in
> >  the following way: ...
>
> Yes, this is how it works.  You scan the first frame of the
> panorama, set "Device|Lock exposure", then scan the rest
> of the frames of the panorama.  I can't think of any way to
> make this simpler, but I'm open to suggestions.

  I suppose my point (question) was ... how does just locking the exposure
make all panoramic frames accurate?  That is, won't the "color" settings
also affect accuracy ... specifically the "white balance" control ... for
example, if Wb is set to "auto" and 1%, won't this affect the "brightness"
of all following frames (if they contain differing # of white pixels)???

  I ask because I would like to know this:  What if I photograph a color
reference card properly, and want Vuescan to scan this 1st frame properly
... One I find the proper white balance, how do I fix the "white balance"
for subsequent frams???

shAf  :o)

RE: filmscanners: (OT) Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Austin Franklin]

> Latency (the time lag it takes for the light out put to reach 10 percent
of its peak) should
> be measured in microseconds rather than milliseconds and should rarely be
of concern.

You are probably right.  It certainly takes "some" time for one of these
6000 watt packs to fire, but I've never really looked into this...and I
wanted to make sure that it wasn't a significant factor in shutter sync
speed. and was hoping someone would know for sure.

Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Rob Geraghty]

"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think categorically, anyone who can pick up the SS4000 for $450 US is
> a happy camper, and I don't think many would argue that.

Yeesh.  I paid US$800 for my lower spec Nikon LS30. :(
(but the SS4000 was US$1500 at the time)

Rob

RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394

[Mark Otway]

>> You have quoted a post which I missed.   I looked at the 
>> site you listed but can see nothing listed for IEEE1394. 
>> Please advise where you saw that XP Home support this.

That's the point - there is no difference between Pro and Home where
Firewire is concerned. It's supported on both. If any particular device
isn't supported, it's because it needs 3rd-party drivers, and it won't
be supported on either Pro or Home without them.

Mark

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2 Available

[Larry Berman]

Hi Ed,

The downloaded exe file is 71, not 72.

Larry



>I just released VueScan 7.2 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X
>and Linux.  It can be downloaded from:
>
>   http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
>
>What's new in version 7.2
>
>   * Improved speed and quality of infrared cleaning
>
>   * Fixed problem with scanning dark media (log10 error)
>
>Regards,
>Ed Hamrick


***
Larry Berman

http://BermanGraphics.com

***

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2 Available

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 11/1/2001 7:33:23 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> The downloaded exe file is 71, not 72.

It's now fixed.  It said vuesca71.exe, but it's actually 7.2.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

filmscanners: VueScan 7.2 Available

[EdHamrick]

I just released VueScan 7.2 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X
and Linux.  It can be downloaded from:

  http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

What's new in version 7.2

  * Improved speed and quality of infrared cleaning

  * Fixed problem with scanning dark media (log10 error)

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets

[Lloyd O'Daniel]

I've been looking for the same animal, but I'd like to have decent 120 final
scan capability as well.. I don't think it exists. The new Epson 2450 Photo
is at $400, but it's tranny capacity is just 4x9" (morons). This might
enable 35mm contact sheets in 2 scans (that'd be close), but would not work
for 120. The only solutions I've found are the Epson 1600 Pro (discontinued,
but can be found on Ebay for around $600) and the Umax Powerlook III (about
$700). Other options, such as the Umax 1100 or the Epson 1680 are more
expensive.

Lloyd


- Original Message -
From: "Jules" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets


> subject that's been touched on this list before.
>
> i want to get a flat bed scanner specifically for making contact sheets
for
> 35mm film.  obviously it needs to be able to handle an 8x11
*transparency*.
> it does NOT need to have great color matching but does need a decent dpi.
>
> i have an epson precision 1200U with the transparency adapter which is
fine,
> but the scanning area for transparencies is very small (can fit jsut 4
(2x2)
> 35mm frames).
>
> other requirements: USB or SCSI and <$400
>
> any ideas?
>
> --
> j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m
> http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range

[Lloyd O'Daniel]

One tidbit that I don't think has been stated: each 0.3 OD equals 1 stop (2X
the light. Log 2=0.3) So, all else being equal, a scanner with a 3.6 OD
range could distinguish 2 more stops detail than one rated at 3.0 by the
same standards. In practice, all else is seldom equal, and the specs are not
standardized. The only instance that I would put any stock in comparing
these numbers would be 2 scanners from the same manufacturer. An example is
Polaroid, who to their credit is conservative in their ratings, rating the
SS4000 at 3.4 and the SS120 at 3.9. I'm afraid that marketing pressure must
have prevailed with the newly-announced SS4000 Plus. It's rated at 4.2 (to
counter Nikon and Minolta) which is clearly just the theoretical A/D range
for a 14-bit system.

Lloyd


- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:09 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range


> What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
> measurement of?  Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
> measurement?
>
>
> Ken Durling
>
>
>
> Photo.net portfolio:
>
> http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
>
>

Re: filmscanners: was:(OT) Pixels per inch vs DPI now: flash synch speeds

[Arthur Entlich]

I believe most studio flash systems are considerably brighter than 
camera mounted portable flashes, and this might explain the differences. 
  I wasn't aware, since I do not use studio flash, that they could be so 
long.  I suspect if the average hand held/camera mounted electronic 
flash had that long a flash period, with the same guide number, the 
batteries would be gone in no time.

Art

SKID Photography wrote:

> For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've experienced 
> the 250th of a second cut off of lighting output on our Polaroids.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> The Speedotron Black Line 2400 watt-second has a flash duration of
> 1/300th second, and shorter if you dial down the power.  That's
> typical of studio power packs.  That duration is measured between
> the 10 percent points.  I'm not sure why you'd care about latency (I
> have to admit I haven't been following this off-topic discussion
> closely).  Latency (the time lag it takes for the light out put to
> reach 10 percent of its peak) should be measured in microseconds
> rather than milliseconds and should rarely be of concern.
> 
> In a message dated 10/31/2001 3:56:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>  
>  
> 
>  > I thought the longest flash durations were in the
> neighborhood of
>  > 1/500th sec.  I don't recall seeing exposure differences at
> shutter
>  > speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor.
> 
> It takes "some" time for the flash to actually fire...and I
> would also guess
> different types of flashes have different timing (latency). 
> Does anyone
> actually know what a typical flashes latency time is?
> 
> I can check my Elinchroms to see what they say this time is
> supposed to
> be...as I have the service manuals for them, and they are pretty
> comprehensive...hopefully, they'll have something to say about it.
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  

Re: filmscanners: (OT) Flash durations, was Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Mark T.]

Just for the record, for those who don't use *studio* flashlighting, 
*on-camera* flashguns rarely drop below 1/500 second flash duration, as 
Dave said.  (Just checked 3 different flashgun manuals to make sure my 
memory serves correctly..)

In fact, the cheaper and smaller the flash, generally the shorter the flash 
duration.  Only high-power flashguns (eg the 'hammer' type generally seen 
hanging off Bronicas, Hassleblads, etc) get down around 1/500 and they get 
there only when you need an awful lot of light..  So compared to the lowest 
fully-open, ie synch-able, shutter speed of a typical SLR it is still a 
much shorter duration.  I doubt that any latency would be relevant - I 
mean, you can slave a second flash off an electronic eye, and *still* not 
catch the second shutter curtain...

And before anyone asks, I'm not going to any effort to prove it - I got 
over all this stuff when I first learnt about cameras.. ;-)

You simply *must* use the synch speed or less (or experiment to see whether 
they have erred on the low side - eg on my usual SLR, the synch speed is 
1/100, but I've satisfied myself that 1/125 is actually still OK).  At 
1/250, hardly surprisingly, I don't get a full-frame of flash - for the 
reasons already explained in some detail..

mt


From: SKID Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've
>experienced the 250th of a second cut off of
>lighting output on our Polaroids.

RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Alex Zabrovsky]

This is indeed one of the points to consider...

Regards,
Alex Z

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Lew
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner



Did you know that Polaroid is bankrupt?  I don't know if that will affect
any future warranty or not but the lesson you should take home is buy
product from a bankrupt company at your own risk.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Alex Zabrovsky wrote:

> Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
> FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000.
> Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous
200
> $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I
> bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
>
>
> I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new
> product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early
> reports which for some reason were less than flattering.  The first
> reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust.  Yet
> more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer
> dICE.
>
> More recent reports have been more positive.  Perhaps there have been
> some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some
> reason.
>
> The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of
> course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile
> consideration, if the price is right.  Here in Canada it is still
> considerably more than in the US.  I don't know how it is priced in
> Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal.
>
> Art
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  > Puzzles me too.  Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to
> initial poor quality control.  But what scanner doesn't suffer from
> this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!)
>  >
>  > But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical
> appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one
> onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!?  I thought I was the only
> local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\..
>  >
>  > He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some
> testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do..
>  >
>  > If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a
> lightweight test.  Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-)
>  >
>  > mt
>  >
>
>
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 vs 8000

[Paul Graham]

Interesting. nobody has thought of that test before
I'd love to see those results too
especially as a lot of 4000 owners report focus problems, 
and 8000 owners do not.

paul

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of DaleH
> Sent: 31 October 2001 11:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 vs 8000
> 
> 
> Is there any difference between the Nikon 4000 and 8000 in scanning 35mm?
> 
> DaleH
> 

RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Vladislav Jurco]

I would say the truth is somewhere in the middle. Scanning freshly developed
film without ICE and using e.g. tablet (even the cheapest) wil typically
take me just few minutes - frequently less than one. Using appropriate
software (e.g. Pentools/pen duster ->bonus software for Graphire) will
further speed up the process. On the other hand quite sufficient for
prolonging this time to x-time more minutes is to take out and put back the
stripe from plastic cover. Doing this 2-3 times and scratches are already
there. Even leaving it in for few days and only then scaning will complicate
my life (static electricity?). Retouching the scratches along the picture on
a blue gradient sky is sometimes night mare. Not to mention the uneveness in
film emulsion which sometimes occur which is really time consuming to
retouch.
On the other hand use of ICE will soften somewhat the picture but not in
terms of resolution but in terms of contrast. I made small personal test
scanning the negative with resolution chart. With ICE the visible resolution
was 65 lpmm without it 65 as well - but with lower contrast (Nikon LSIV) and
less apparent grain. This might be sometimes advantage sometimes not.
I think the usefullness of ICE is closely related to the system of work with
films and here everybody has to find his own way.

Vlad




Tom's statement is completely contrary to my experience. I 've used the
SS4000 for about a year and a half and I don't spend on average 2 minutes
cloning dust spots or scratches. To this point, I wouldn't have used the
infrared channel even if I had it. Regards, Ron Carlson
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:53 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner


> > I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
> > FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000.
>
> I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
> but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend
> hours
> on dust and scratches removing.
>
> Tom
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>


---
Príchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.293 / Virová báze: 158 - datum vydání: 29.10.2001

---
Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.293 / Virová báze: 158 - datum vydání: 29.10.2001

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan iv ed trashes Windows 98SE

[Paul Graham]

Sounds like you have been caught by excpetionally bad problems with NS 3.1
It is known to be more or less broken with W2K, (works but crashes
erratically) and with dual processor machines (yours?) The archive lists
many, many posts on the topic, I enclose one below. Supposedly 98 was much
more stable though.
If you are content with Vuescan then use it. It has better colour
management, you will get better results, but get no pretty histogram to play
with.
Otherwise hold your breath for 3.1.1 like the rest of us, which is a major
bug fixer, hopefully...

Paul

>>>

---Archive Message---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stuart Nixon
Sent: 14 October 2001 18:39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1 does not work under W2K (report on
tests)


Hi.

I am sure you are aware that people have reported NikonScan 3.1 is
unable to scan - especially batching multiple scans - without crashing.

SUMMARY:

With rare exceptions, NikonScan 3.1 crashes for Windows 2000 users.

My testing and feedback from other users has confirmed
that NikonScan 3.1 does not operate correctly under Windows 2000.
This software should never have been released in its current buggy state.

Please feel free to distribute this report to Nikon Japan, Europe
and USA technical support, and also to people who have performed
reviews of Nikon scanners.  Perhaps we can finally get Nikon to
get serious about fixing their software.


Background:

Some weeks ago I asked for feedback on running NikonScan 3.1
under Windows 2000.  Many people responded, and quite a few
were kind enough to provide additional feedback when I requested,
including Joe Blaze, Paul Graham, Bob Kehl, Tom Scales,
Charles Volkland and many others. Thank you.

A couple of people reported that NikonScan 3.1 never failed
for them.  There was no particular commonality on those systems that
worked - one was a fast AMD single CPU, and two others were slower
dual CPU Intel chips.  About the only interesting thing was that
two of the working systems did not use the Nikon supplied Firewire card.

Everyone else (about 80% of responses) reported that NikonScan 3.1
failed constantly for them under Windows 2000, for single or dual CPU
machines.  Most people reported having swapped to other products such
as VueScan (which incidentally is rock solid from what I have seen),
or if they really *had* to use NikonScan, ran it from within PhotoShop,
scanning a single photo at a time.  Because Photoshop restarts the
scanner software each time, this reduced the crashes to "only" 1 out 10
scans or so.



Ways to reduce NikonScan 3.1 crashes:

-   Use something else. If you are serious about bulk scanning,
then basically NikonScan 3.1 is a waste of time unless you are
one of those very rare & lucky people to have it run without crashing.
VueScan and Silverfast are two alternative scanning products.

-   If you can, run Windows 98 on the scanner PC instead
of W2K.  NikonScan seems more stable under W98.

-   Run a slower PC.  It is more stable on PCs less than 350Mhz or so.

-   Set the Temp drive *and* the scanner output location to a network
drive. This will reduce NikonScan crashes by about 50%.  So if you
are lucky, you might get 6 scans instead of 3 before it crashes.

-   On dual CPU machines, lock NikonScan to run in UniProcessor mode.
This will reduce crashes somewhat.



Testing performed:

Given Nikon has been aware of these crash problems since NikonScan 3.0
and has not fixed them, I wanted to see if the problem could be pinned
down and perhaps a work around could be found.


My testing basically showed that for all configurations I could try,
NikonScan 3.1 is unstable.  I did manage to get it to batch scan 6 slides
just once without crashing. Big deal :-(

-   Coolscan 4000ED, using the Nikon supplied Firewire controller.

-   Three different Windows 2000 machines.  Each machine had 1GB RAM,
IDE drives, and dual CPUs.  However, each machine had a different
motherboard, and different CPUs. I tried ASUS, Intel and Tyan
motherboards, and Intel P3, P4 and AMD Athlon MP CPUs. Each
ran different nVidia cards (2's and 3's). I also tested
against a 4th machine that had been heavily used for processing
jobs that ran into CPU-weeks, and was known to be very stable.
Machines were 733Mhz, 933Mhz and 1.2Ghz.
Significantly, each machine had very different motherboards
and add-on cards from different manufacturers.

-   Each machine was clean loaded within Windows 2000 Server.
The latest motherboard/IDE/etc drivers were updated, then SP2,
then the latest security patches.

-   Only Photoshop 6, and NikonScan was installed on each machine.
No printers were installed (earlier versions of NikonScan
had problems with different printers installed).

Testing was to simply run

filmscanners: filmscanner 4000 dpi

[Bernard COMOLET]

Hello
I am looking for any
experiences, good or bad with 4000
dpi scanner.
In a few days , I plan to
buy one Nikon ls 4000 ; any comment
with it???
There is the other brand,
Canon FS4000, Polaroid, what is
your opinion.

All the reply are welcome,
thanks a lot.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


bonjour de ANGOULEME

  bernard

Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Rob Geraghty]

"Ron Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom's statement is completely contrary to my experience. I 've used the
> SS4000 for about a year and a half and I don't spend on average 2 minutes
> cloning dust spots or scratches. To this point, I wouldn't have used the
> infrared channel even if I had it. Regards, Ron Carlson

YMMV - if you are buying a scanner to scan a whole bunch of old family negs
or slides which may have scratches and damage, the infra-red channel is an
essential for keeping your hair and sanity.  But I agree for new, clean
film, the SS4000 doesn't tend to show dust and scratches in the same way the
Nikon scanners do.

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Arthur Entlich]

In fairness to the SS4000, it is not without a dust and scratch
correction system.  It does not have an infrared detection system, but
it does have two other features.

It has a lighting source which tends to minimize surface defects (I 
can't comment on how it is with the Canon FS4000, but many have pointed 
out that the Nikon scanners (and the Minolta Dual II, which I own) tends 
to emphasize these defects.  Secondly, the SS4000 has dust and scratch
reduction software in Insight which can be activated if needed.

Art

tom wrote:

 >>I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
 >>FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000.
 >>
 >
 > I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
 > but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will 
spend
 > hours
 > on dust and scratches removing.
 >
 > Tom
 >

Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Arthur Entlich]

I think categorically, anyone who can pick up the SS4000 for $450 US is
a happy camper, and I don't think many would argue that.

The question is how it fits with other scanners in other places than the
US.  Here in Canada it is at par or a little more expensive than the
Canon FS4000, so that changes the geography somewhat.

  From everything I have seen, and from those who have used both these
scanners, between the Canon FS 4000 and Polaroid SS4000 each with their
native software, the Polaroid SS4000 will probably better serve anyone
who shoots slides and doesn't abuse them physically, due to improved
dynamic range or at least low noise in the shadow regions.  Since
negative film is less demanding in this area, and is more likely to be
damaged in processing or storage, if the color rendition one gets is
good with the Canon, it might have an advantage with the FARE feature.

Again, the SS4000 appears to limit surface defects from showing up in
scans, and does have a software solution to dust and scratches, so its
not as cut and dry a decision as it may first appear to be.

Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 >>I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
 >>but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will 
spend
 >>hours
 >>on dust and scratches removing.
 >>
 >
 > Sorry, I disagree. I recently purchased a SS4000 and, trust me, 
getting such a great scanner for $450 WAS NOT A MISTAKE!!!
 > I don't have a ton of old dusty film and I find that scanning new 
slides/negs is very easy. On average I spend about 10 seconds using a 
StaticMaster brush and maybe 2-3 minutes de-spotting in Photoshop. Which 
is nothing compared to the time I spend tweaking color, contrast etc.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > .
 >
 >

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Arthur Entlich]

SKID Photography wrote:


 > Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th 
and 250th of a second.  Will will see that
 > there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
 >
 > As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that 
manufacturers fudged them.
 >
 >
 > Harvey Ferdscneider
 > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
 >



Are the faster shutter speed images in each case darker from the slower
in your experience?

If the factor is the flash, as you suggest, wouldn't that mean the
duration is more in the order of 1/60th to 1/125th of a second or so, or
that the output is otherwise being affected by the shutter speed
timing/synching or whathaveyou?  This seems like a very great
discrepancy from the specs.  Since I do very little studio flash
photography, preferring to work with static lighting for studio work,
I've never tested my flashes under conditions which were well enough
controlled to know for sure what is going on.

I'd be interested in anyone else who has done controlled studio testing
using on camera electronic flashes, because if indeed the units are so
mis-speced, I think the manufacturers should be confronted with this.


Art