Re: filmscanners: Slide scanner question.
Hi Eric; You're going to get conflicting answers from different folks on this list. I have the SS4000 and love it and I wouldn't consider the other two for my purposes. If you think you may want to crop your images and you want to be able to make the largest prints you can out of the resulting file, you will want the most resolution you can get. Every thing else being equal, 4000 dpi beats 2700 dpi for file size every time. You no doubt know that Polaroid has filed chapter 11. You have to make your own judgement relative to that. I've had my SS4000 for a year and a half and made hundreds of scans with great results and no problems. For me, ICE is a non issue because with the SS4000, I wouldn't use it if I had it. If you have scratched slides or work in a dusty environment, you experience might be different. Oh yes, I sell fine art nature and wild life prints so I'm a little fussy. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:48 PM Subject: filmscanners: Slide scanner question. > hiya there, > > I have a quick question for the group here. > > I am looking for a new slide scanner.. Right now I have a Photosmart > scanner with Vuescan software and it works ok, but with tough slides or dark > slides they don't scan quite that well. > > I have been looking at three different scanners. > > Nikon LS IV Coolscan > Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 > Polaroid sprint scan 4000 > > I know someone who has the LS 2000 Scanner and loves it, and I can get one > for around $750.00 new . > I also have heard about the Polaroid scanner and the 200 rebate they are > offering.. > > Does anyone know about the Nikon LS IV coolscan and a comparison between the > three of them? > > I know some of the specs. of all of them, but what is the best one overall? > > Thanks > > Eric > > >
Re: filmscanners: FS4000
Anyone having after sales warranty problems with Polaroid equipment should contact David Hemingway. I know of NOT one and I've been on this list most of the time for the last 20 months. If you've been following the the list, you must know that no other scanner manufactures has a presence here. I have mostly a high regard for Canon equipment ( all my camera equipment is Canon ) but I find your comment about the SS44000 at best , missleading. Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: "John Rylatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:10 PM Subject: filmscanners: FS4000 > Having followed the comments on this list for several months now, it appears to me that > the FS4000 has had the least problems as experienced by other users, when compared to > SS4000 (after sales warranty) and Silverfast (upgrades), depth of field with Nikon etc, > and the price is right. I have seen only one negative comment on the FS4000, and that was > due to a noisy filmholder feed. > > My OS is Windows Me with 512 Mb RAM, USB connectors, and Paint Shop Pro 7.04. > > As a result I am looking to purchase (for non commercial use) the FS4000 on the US market. > Does anyone know who is offering the best deal? > > Comments appreciated. > > Regards, John. >
Re: filmscanners: PSP 7 > "Clarify"
> I'm going to read Wayne Fulton ro get clear on the difference between > "sharpen" and "unsharp mask," but PSP 7 has an adjsutment called > "Clarify" which looks sort of like a combination of contrast and > sharpness adjustment. Anyone know exactly what it does? Clarify was discussed at the alt.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro newsgroup before. What it actually does is a secret according to the developpers of PSP :-) But they ensured there was no sharpening involved. __ With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands Burma - Photo Gallery http://burma.wolweb.nl Nepal - Trekking Around Annapurna - Photo Gallery http://annapurna.wolweb.nl
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
> But it also looks like the extra exposure has blown the highlights pretty > badly Please remember that the presented images are all after gamma correction. I corrected gamma in order to "amplify" noises in very dark area (dark area in underexposed (-2) slide). It was adjusted more than necessary to obtain properly exposed scan. Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
In device control there is an option Exposure, I do not have the scanner here, so I can send you more precise answer in the evening. Tom --- David Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How do you put a +2 in filmget or getfilm?? > __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Multiple passes
> Someone feel like expounding briefly on the multiple pass technique? > I'm using Vuescan and a FS2710, slides and both color and B&W negs. > What is the purpose and what determines the number of passes you set? > I tried a couple at 2 passes, and saw no noticeable effect, although > I'm not at all sure what I'm looking for. > I've noticed a significant improvement in shadow noise on my FS2710 since I started using the multiple pass technique. Check yourself by scanning a slide with an area of deep shadow and look to see if there are stray pixels of green and red in the dark area where they should not be, this is noise. Now scan the same slide with 3-4 passes, they should now disappear. I believe the scanner makes several passes and averages the results thus eliminating the noise, (I could be wrong). -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C _) ) --- ' __ /
Re: filmscanners: Multiple passes
"Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone feel like expounding briefly on the multiple pass technique? It just means the scanner does several passes and combines the result. > I'm using Vuescan and a FS2710, slides and both color and B&W negs. > What is the purpose and what determines the number of passes you set? Usually to get more shadow detail and less noise. By averaging the passes you should reduce noise and effectively increase the ability of the scanner to pick up details. But the scanner registration must be exact - the passes have to line up precisely. The Nikon LS2000, 4000 and 8000 have an advantage here because they can do "multi-exposure" in a single pass. Each exposure line gets done multiple times in one pass. No registration problem. > I tried a couple at 2 passes, and saw no noticeable effect, although > I'm not at all sure what I'm looking for. I don't know if it's terribly useful with a 2710. Any other 2710 owners use multipass? I don't use it much with my LS30, but when I have tried it the registration has been OK. It seems to cause a slight loss of sharpness, but also seems to reduce aliasing. Rob
Re: filmscanners: PSP 7 > "Clarify"
Well, if you click on it and it doesn't explain itself, it obviously doesn't work! ;-) Art Ken Durling wrote: > I'm going to read Wayne Fulton ro get clear on the difference between > "sharpen" and "unsharp mask," but PSP 7 has an adjsutment called > "Clarify" which looks sort of like a combination of contrast and > sharpness adjustment. Anyone know exactly what it does? > > > Ken Durling > > > > Photo.net portfolio: > > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > > . > >
Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?
>>If people aren't stuck on having a full zoom range, in general, fixed >>focus lenses are better quality and better value. Also, used lenses can >>often be good value, if they come with some type of warranty. >> > It has been brought to my attention that I "mis-typed" in my posting regarding lenses. The part above which states "fixed focus" should have read "fixed focal length". (Thanks Rob!) Although those fixed focus lenses sure make it a lot easier to take pictures, one less silly adjustment to make. I also really like fixed shutter speed and aperture cameras, no fuss no mess ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: FS4000
I am sorry if I was misleading in my comment, but I was looking at 12 to 15 months into the future in light of Polaroids Chapter 11 filing. I have great respect for David Hemingway (and Polaroid), but I doubt if he can say for sure if Polaroid will be in a position to repair/replace a defective scanner in Feb 2003. I may be wrong. I am also aware that there is also the possibility that other scanner manufacturers may also suffer the same fate (as Polaroid) in the future. Regards, John. Ron Carlson wrote: > > Anyone having after sales warranty problems with Polaroid equipment should > contact David Hemingway. I know of NOT one and I've been on this list most > of the time for the last 20 months. If you've been following the the list, > you must know that no other scanner manufactures has a presence here. I have > mostly a high regard for Canon equipment ( all my camera equipment is > Canon ) but I find your comment about the SS44000 at best , missleading. > Ron Carlson > - Original Message - > From: "John Rylatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:10 PM > Subject: filmscanners: FS4000 > > > Having followed the comments on this list for several months now, it > appears to me that > > the FS4000 has had the least problems as experienced by other users, when > compared to > > SS4000 (after sales warranty) and Silverfast (upgrades), depth of field > with Nikon etc, > > and the price is right. I have seen only one negative comment on the > FS4000, and that was > > due to a noisy filmholder feed. > > > > My OS is Windows Me with 512 Mb RAM, USB connectors, and Paint Shop Pro > 7.04. > > > > As a result I am looking to purchase (for non commercial use) the FS4000 > on the US market. > > Does anyone know who is offering the best deal? > > > > Comments appreciated. > > > > Regards, John. > >
filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.3 Available
I just released VueScan 7.2.3 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 7.2.3 * Significantly improved quality of "Filter|Grain reduction" * Added support for more scan resolutions on some scanners * Fixed problem with some SCSI controllers on Mac OS 8/9 (especially with Adaptec USBXchange) Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: W2K vuescan memory problems
Hi all, I'm having problems with Vuescan scanning very large scans, and getting memory warnings, like: Warning: Unable to allocate 638Mb memory Try increasing the amount of virtual memory I have tried everything in terms of increasing the Virtual Memory/Paging file size, and it seems to make no difference. I've got over 4000 Mb allocated on my second drive, (max and min set the same) no other programmes of any consequence running, and still get this call. I have 1.5Gb of RAM, W2K,SP1 (should I get SP2?) and dual 1Ghz processors. I have tried moving the file around from my second drive, to include the first, C, drive, the RAID system (neither of which microsoft recommends) etc. no difference. any suggestions out there? I have tried with Ed and he thinks its a peculiarity of my particular system, although no oter programme gives this problem. (eg Nikonscan or Photoshop, using equally or even larger files) Is there a freeware to check up on memory issues? or a specific way to allocate more RAM to vuescan? I asked before if anyone out there had a Nikon 8000 using Vuescan and got zero response, but I cant believeI'm the only one, really? Paul
filmscanners: Re: Is 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
At 3:14 PM +1000 11/6/01, Rob Geraghty wrote: >Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between >their lenses when scanning films? Yes, I've found that a few of my lenses are not as sharp at the edges as I thought they were, in particular my Pentax 35-105 f/3.5 zoom. I first blamed my scanner (Minolta Scan Dual II, 2820 ppi), but when I looked at the slides with a loupe (8X), sure enough, the corners weren't as sharp as the centre. On the other hand, I recently got a used 70-210 f/4-f/5.6 AF Pentax which scans very well - better than I had originally thought. Slides from my Pentax 35mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses also make good scans. Regards, Roger Smith
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
That would be great Tom. I had this scanner for a few months now but haven't really used the filmget software too much. On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, tom wrote: > In device control there is an option Exposure, I do not have the scanner here, > so I can send you more precise answer in the evening. > Tom > --- David Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > How do you put a +2 in filmget or getfilm?? > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Find a job, post your resume. > http://careers.yahoo.com >
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanner question.
I know about conflicting answers ... currently I have Photosmart that seems to work ok, but not good on sunset and a bit dark images.. subject in the slides So I have a question for you to ponder. I am looking for a new scanner and have narrowed it down to three options. they are . Nikon LS IV 2900DPI with Digital ICE, ROC and Gem software approx $750.00 http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 2700 DPI with ICE, ROC and GEM software multipass scanning approx. $750.00 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS2K/LS2KA.HTM Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 multipass scanning and higher resolution and silverfast software around $699.00 with a $200.00 rebate http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/SS4000/SS40A.HTM any thoughts? not going to print them, yet, just scan and post on web and other things... === > Hi Eric; > You're going to get conflicting answers from different folks on this list. I > have the SS4000 and love it and I wouldn't consider the other two for my > purposes. If you think you may want to crop your images and you want to be > able to make the largest prints you can out of the resulting file, you will > want the most resolution you can get. Every thing else being equal, 4000 dpi > beats 2700 dpi for file size every time. You no doubt know that Polaroid has > filed chapter 11. You have to make your own judgement relative to that. I've > had my SS4000 for a year and a half and made hundreds of scans with great > results and no problems. For me, ICE is a non issue because with the SS4000, > I wouldn't use it if I had it. If you have scratched slides or work in a > dusty environment, you experience might be different. Oh yes, I sell fine > art nature and wild life prints so I'm a little fussy. Regards, Ron Carlson > - Original Message - > From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:48 PM > Subject: filmscanners: Slide scanner question. > > > > hiya there, > > > > I have a quick question for the group here. > > > > I am looking for a new slide scanner.. Right now I have a Photosmart > > scanner with Vuescan software and it works ok, but with tough slides or > dark > > slides they don't scan quite that well. > > > > I have been looking at three different scanners. > > > > Nikon LS IV Coolscan > > Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 > > Polaroid sprint scan 4000 > > > > I know someone who has the LS 2000 Scanner and loves it, and I can get one > > for around $750.00 new . > > I also have heard about the Polaroid scanner and the 200 rebate they are > > offering.. > > > > Does anyone know about the Nikon LS IV coolscan and a comparison between > the > > three of them? > > > > I know some of the specs. of all of them, but what is the best one > overall? > > > > Thanks > > > > Eric > > > > > > >
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
> Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between > their lenses when scanning films? Drastic difference, yes!
filmscanners: Polaroid?SilverFast Discount Link
http://www.lasersoft-imaging.com/silverfast/upgrade-polaroid55-en.htm It's kinda of hidden on SilverFast's site but the above is the directions for how to get the discount Negafix Upgrade Price for Polaroid Scanners. Shawn Coggins http://www.originalgimp.org/index.htm http://www.herronparkhorsetrials.org/
filmscanners: Re: Multiple passes
At 8:57 PM +1000 11/6/01, Rob Geraghty wrote: >I don't know if it's terribly useful with a 2710. Any other 2710 owners use >multipass? I don't use it much with my LS30, but when I have tried it the >registration has been OK. It seems to cause a slight loss of sharpness, but >also seems to reduce aliasing. I used multipass occasionally with my FS2710. Like Rob, I saw a slight loss in sharpness but usually a noticeable improvement in noise levels in dark areas of the slide. I didn't try more than 3 passes - after that the loss in sharpness presumably caused by mis-registration seemed more apparent. Regards, Roger Smith
re: filmscanners: re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness
At the risk of stating the obvious, to reach the limits of your lens resolving power you must either select a fast shutter speed or use a tripod, otherwise the image will be somewhat soft due to camera shake. Even then problems can arise from mirror slap and shutter vibration when the exposure is ~1/15 second. The difference between a good and a mediocre lens is obvious in a 12x8 enlargement which is easily within reach of a 2700 DPI scanner. So the 4000 DPI scanner will only make a difference if a) you have a good lens, b) you avoid camera vibration, and c) you use a fine grain film such as Fuji Sensia 100. Leif. - L.S. Goodwin - S/W Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thales Instruments Ltd. Tel:+44 (0) 1628 604455 ext 290 480 Bath Road Tel:07754 006 473 (Mobile- BT CellNet) Burnham Fax:+44 (0) 1628 662017 Slough Berkshire SL1 6BE England *** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. It is intended only for the stated addressee(s) and access to it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this e-mail. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform RACAL INSTRUMENTS LTD. immediately by phoning +44 (0)1628 604455 (ask for the I.T. dept) and delete it and all copies from your system. ***
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're photographic issues. Before scanning, you should have a negative or transparency that is sharp. If it isn't, scanning won't improve anything. It's possible that a 2700 dpi scanner can camouflage some lens defects, but a 4000 dpi scanner is a lot less forgiving. If your negative or transparency isn't sharp, then the best you can hope for is that your scanner will produce an equally bad image. In a message dated Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between > > their lenses when scanning films? > > Drastic difference, yes!
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
In FilmGet v1.0.1 1. In menu Settings -> Exposure Settings... 2. switch off Auto Exposure 3. Now you can adjust Exposure from -2stops up to +2stops. By the way I do not how to control exposure in Vuescan, exposure 6 does not allow obtain same results as +2stops in filmGet. Regards Tom --- David Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be great Tom. I had this scanner for a few months now but > haven't really used the filmget software too much. __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: SS 4000 and Windows XP
Kim, Polaroid has not officially tested XP but I do know someone that tried it and it worked. To quote: " I did one very fast test on the beta 1 version of XP (home, I think). I hooked up a scanner (either a 4000 or 4000P, I don't remember). The scanner was identified and I was able to do a scan." At least that is hopeful. David -Original Message- From: Kim Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: SS 4000 and Windows XP Does anyone (possibly David Hemingway) have any information concerning Windows XP support for the Polaroid SprintScan 4000? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Sorry, I do mean to be snide, but like duh. Does anyone really not already know this, or am I missing your point? Sometimes I WANT to shoot with my Zeiss Super Ikonta B at 2.8...and it gives me fuzzy negatives, compared to my Hasselblad...but I still want so scan them! > Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're > photographic issues. Before scanning, you should have a negative > or transparency that is sharp. If it isn't, scanning won't > improve anything. It's possible that a 2700 dpi scanner can > camouflage some lens defects, but a 4000 dpi scanner is a lot > less forgiving. If your negative or transparency isn't sharp, > then the best you can hope for is that your scanner will produce > an equally bad image. > > In a message dated Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard > Time, "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in > sharpness between > > > their lenses when scanning films? > > > > Drastic difference, yes! > >
RE: filmscanners: re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness
> At the risk of stating the obvious, to reach the limits of your lens > resolving power you must either select a fast shutter speed or > use a tripod, Or be very good at holding the camera very steady... > otherwise the image will be somewhat soft due to camera shake. Even then > problems can arise from mirror slap and shutter vibration when > the exposure > is ~1/15 second. Mirror slap? On a rangefinder? Not a problem. > The difference between a good and a mediocre lens is obvious in a 12x8 > enlargement which is easily within reach of a 2700 DPI scanner. > So the 4000 > DPI scanner will only make a difference if a) you have a good lens, b) you > avoid camera vibration, and c) you use a fine grain film such as > Fuji Sensia > 100. d) you want larger than 12x8 output...
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
In a message dated 11/6/2001 2:41:36 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In FilmGet v1.0.1 > 1. In menu Settings -> Exposure Settings... > 2. switch off Auto Exposure > 3. Now you can adjust Exposure from -2stops up to +2stops. > By the way I do not how to control exposure in Vuescan, exposure 6 does not > allow obtain same results as +2stops in filmGet. 0 stops = exposure 1 1 stops = exposure 2 2 stops = exposure 4 Stops and exposure are related by powers of two. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Rob, You might want to look at the Voigtlander (Cosina) range of lenses. Although these are primarily LTM manual focus rangefinder lenses, they have produced some models (I think the 75mm and 90mm) in SLR mounts as well. By all accounts, these lenses may not be quite up there with Leica/Contax glass but they are pretty close and at a much lower cost. I'd be very surprised if they didn't resolve detail way above the 2700ppi limit of your LS-30. Maybe someone on the list with one of these lenses can comment? Al Bond
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Roger wrote: > Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're > photographic issues. Well, yes, but how many non-pro photographers look at their films with the sort of equivalent magnification you get at 2700dpi? There's plenty of people who can afford a film scanner who might not check every frame with a loupe. > Before scanning, you should have a negative or transparency > that is sharp. Agreed. But a photo I might think is sharp, one of the list's Leica users might think is funny. I don't say that in a negative way - all I'm saying is that everyone has their own standards. > If it isn't, scanning won't improve anything. No, it won't. The reason I asked the question "has anyone noticed the difference in scanned results from photos taken with different lenses" was to try to gauge how important the issue of image sharpness really is. If film is capable of recording in excess of 6000dpi and I have a 2700dpi scanner, leica quality sharpness may not be useful to me because the scanner's resolution simply can't "see" the difference. I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be significant in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to spend money on. So my question *did* relate to filmscanning. Obviously I'll get better results on film if if use better lenses. I'm simply trying to figure out whether it's worth the expense for the difference in scans - and at the moment all my photos that are being published are going to the publisher as scans from my LS30. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Slide scanner question.
Eric wrote: >Nikon LS IV 2900DPI with Digital ICE, ROC and Gem software approx $750.00 >http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM >Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 2700 DPI with ICE, ROC and GEM software multipass >scanning approx. $750.00 >http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS2K/LS2KA.HTM >Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 multipass scanning and higher resolution and >silverfast software around $699.00 with a $200.00 rebate >http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/SS4000/SS40A.HTM >not going to print them, yet, just scan and post on web and other things... Those three scanners will give you more than enough resolution for the web, in fact more than enough to print up to A3. I wouldn't go for the LS2000 - if anyone is still selling them it's old stock or a refurb. The LSIV has better resolution. Of those three I'd go for the SS4000 given the price an dknowing the results from the scanner - unless you have a lot of old dirty films you want to scan. If the films are all clean and new, go for the Polaroid. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Thanks, Rob. I understand a little better about what you were asking about. It sounds like you want to know how much money you should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in order to get decent scans. My suggestion would be buy "reasonably costly" lenses, fixed focal length rather than zoom if your shooting style can tolerate it, more expensive lenses rather than cheaper ones, etc. As has already been pointed out, slow shutter speeds, shooting wide open, shooting at the long focal length end of a zoom, etc., can give poor results with any lens compared to the results when shooting conditions with that lens are optimized. I wouldn't recommend selecting lenses based on the name of the manufacturer. I know that some people swear by Lieca, or Nikon, or Cannon, or some other brand, but the price you pay for a lens has more bearing on the quality than does the brand name. Lens quality today is very good, except for some cheap, variable focal length zooms. Any moderately priced lens, including those from Sigma and Tamron, should be able to make a very good 8x10 conventional print. The best 35 mm lens will have trouble making a really good 11x14. The print size limit for 3! 5 mm lenses is therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 but not much over 11x14. With a 2700 ppi scan, you should also be able to make at least an 8x10, and maybe even an 11x14 based on the number of pixels you have to work with. Most of the image degradation will be from the scanning (assuming you used a reasonably good lens at its optimum characteristics). I really doubt that you could see the difference in scanned images from a "very good" lens vs. an "excellent" lens. It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan. Keep in mind that you may someday own a 4000 ppi scanner (as prices drop and technology improves). That would make scans from "good" lenses look a little better than from a 2700 ppi scanner, so your invenstment in good lenses might someday provide a bonus. However, the biggest benefit from moving up to a 4000 ppi scanner would be in the reduced pixelation, and not so much from any addition detail it might show from a "good" lens. I use 4000 ppi scanners for both 35 mm and medium format and I have never noticed any difference in results based on the lens I happened to use, and I normally make big enlargments (11x14 to 13x19). But I have some very good Nikon and Mamiya lenses, only two out of 24 are zooms, and I can usually shoot at medium aperatures from a camera stand using studio strobes. You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get quality. Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased lens test data. While I shoot Nikon in 35 mm, I usually recommend the Cannon system to serious photographers who are buying a new system. It's not that Cannon lenses are any better (they're equivalent); it's that there's a bigger variety to select from and Cannon produces more technological breakthroughs because of their company's size. In other words, lens quality is only one factor is selecting what lens to buy. Ron, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap ones). Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens. Shoot the lens under optimum conditions. Don't spend your money on a lens based on the brand name. Plan on buying a 4000 ppi scanner someday. Happy scanning! In a message dated Tue, 6 Nov 2001 6:36:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Roger wrote: > > Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're > > photographic issues. > > Well, yes, but how many non-pro photographers look at their films with the > sort of equivalent magnification you get at 2700dpi? There's plenty of > people who can afford a film scanner who might not check every frame with > a loupe. > > > Before scanning, you should have a negative or transparency > > that is sharp. > > Agreed. But a photo I might think is sharp, one of the list's Leica users > might think is funny. I don't say that in a negative way - all I'm saying > is that everyone has their own standards. > > > If it isn't, scanning won't improve anything. > > No, it won't. The reason I asked the question "has anyone noticed the difference > in scanned results from photos taken with different lenses" was to try to > gauge how important the issue of image sharpness really is. If film is > capable of recording in excess of 6000dpi and I have a 2700dpi scanner, > leica quality sharpness may not be useful to me because the scanner's resolution > simply can't "see" the difference. I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch > of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be significant > in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to spend > money on. > > So my question *did* relate to filmscanning. Obviously I'll get better > results on
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Roger wrote: > It sounds like you want to know how much money you > should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in > order to get decent scans. Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are "decent" enough for me, but they could be better. All these terms are relative. :) > The best 35mm lens will have trouble making a really > good 11x14. The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is > therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 > but not much over 11x14. See above about "relative". :) I believe you absolutely as far as a "really good" print from the point of view of a Pro photographer. But for instance I have a 30"x20" photographic print (as opposed to inkjet) at home which everyone raves about. It was printed in 1981 from ordinary Kodak 100ASA colour negative film, and taken with a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera dating from about 1950. But I take your point. > It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan. Or other factors like aperture, camera shake etc. > You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get > quality. Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased > lens test data. I was pleasantly surprised to see that some Pentax lenses rated very well on that site. I thought I might have to change cameras to get a better lens. > Rob, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you > don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap > ones). Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens. Makes sense. > Shoot the lens under optimum conditions. If only that were always possible! My photos taken from ultralights are under pretty challenging conditions - no chance of a tripod, vibration and wind buffeting, hand held... but at least the bright conditions make a high shutter speed possible! :) Again, I take your point. > Don't spend your money on a lens based on the > brand name. Good advice - there seems to be a lot of variations in lenses. > Plan on buying a 4000ppi scanner someday. By the time I can afford it maybe they'll be 6000ppi. ;) Thanks for the suggestions. Rob PS Thanks to others who have responded with their experiences of scanning and what impact the lens used has had. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
At 06:21 PM 11/6/01, Dave King wrote: >Oh I don't know, Cartier Bresson's large format prints from 40 year >old negs look pretty good to me. But Bresson was more on intuition >than engineering, and I don't think he made his photos or prints for >photo geeks who look at a print from 2 inches away. I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
> Roger wrote: > > > The best 35 mm lens will have trouble making a really good 11x14. > > The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is therefore somewhere > > in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 but not much over 11x14. You should tell that to National Geographic...They regularly do 8x10 *foot* prints from 35 mm chromes, and they look *GREAT*! It's not the grain that gets in the wayIt's the lack of tones. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Cartier-Bresson's prints were made by in the darkroom at Magnum. When I was in collage I had a friend that worked there. He could call down to the darkroom at any time and ask for a print (not that he did it that often because they had to be accounted for. He did have a print of one of the most famous Cartier-Bresson images hanging in his apartment. Larry >I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
All this talk about great lenses that are needed to make great photos reminds me that, finally, it is the vision of the photographer that really counts. One need look no further than the amazing photos that Edward Steichen took at the Acropolis in Greece in the 1920s (?) using a box camera he borrowed from the head waiter. (A long silly story) A contemporary example would be the many stunning photos taken with 'Holga' cameras, which have plastic lenses and very non flat film planes. I am not saying that there is no need for Zeiss lenses in this world, but photography transcends mere lenses, and we should not lose sight of that (as it were). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Dave wrote: >I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs >shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. What are you scanning the 800 speed film with, Dave? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
> I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs > shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. I doubt they *really* look "great". > I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for > 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you resolution isn't what > photography is about unless you're a geek! You don't have to be a geek to want decent resolution on certain images. Not all, but there certainly are many images that require decent resolution to "make" the image. > Ducking for cover, You'd better!
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
- Original Message - From: "Jeff Spirer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness? > >But Bresson was more on intuition > >than engineering, and I don't think he made his photos or prints for > >photo geeks who look at a print from 2 inches away. > > I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. No, in fact he didn´t - he had his printer for that. He had to much things to do Bernhard
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
My apologies for clogging bandwidth with a message that doesn't really add any useful information ;-), but I would like to add: 1. Way to go, Dave! There's at least 2 of us who think like that on the list, so I'll happily duck for cover too :). I think we all need to spend a bit more time experimenting, standing back from our output, and not steadfastly sticking to the 'alleged' dpi limitations (both of printed output and scanned input..) and 2. Thanks, RogerMillerPhoto for that *excellent* coverage of the lens/scanner sharpness question.. regards, mark t >From "Dave King" .. > I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs > shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. > > I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for > 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you resolution isn't what > photography is about unless you're a geek! > > Ducking for cover, > > Dave:) This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Cartier-Bresson's prints were made by George Fevre, who also printed for Doisneau, Brassai and others. He was the printer at a big lab in Paris. This is well-documented, but I thought it was somewhat off-topic for the list. There are many articles about it and interviews with Fevrre. At 08:20 PM 11/6/01, Larry Berman wrote: >Cartier-Bresson's prints were made by in the darkroom at Magnum. When I >was in collage I had a friend that worked there. He could call down to the >darkroom at any time and ask for a print (not that he did it that often >because they had to be accounted for. He did have a print of one of the >most famous Cartier-Bresson images hanging in his apartment. > >Larry > > >>I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. > > >*** >Larry Berman > >http://BermanGraphics.com > >*** > Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Re: filmscanners: W2K vuescan memory problems
> I'm having problems with Vuescan scanning very large scans, and getting > memory warnings, like: > > Warning: > Unable to allocate 638Mb memory > Try increasing the amount of virtual memory VueScan is giving out a warning?!? One thing I noticed about Vuescan is that it does not give out any error messages at all. Is that a peculiarity of my system? I had a similar error when I tried opening scanned TIFFs larger than about 42MB, in my case PS was throwing up the error. Reinstalling PS helped (after wiping the registry of all PS traces). Have you tried looking at the event log, both system and application log? Have you checked task administrator for how much memory is allocated? Regards, Barbara -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
I guess it depended on which country you were in at the time. He was represented by Magnum in the US in the 1970's. It's also possible that Magnum had a set of copy negatives but It's not worth further discussion . Larry At 09:46 PM 11/6/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Cartier-Bresson's prints were made by George Fevre, who also printed for >Doisneau, Brassai and others. He was the printer at a big lab in >Paris. This is well-documented, but I thought it was somewhat off-topic >for the list. There are many articles about it and interviews with Fevrre. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
filmscanners: Artixscan 4000T and Vuescan
Anyone use Vuescan with the Artixscan 4000T? I find that I get excellent results using the Scan Wizard software and Fuji Sensia 100, Kodak 100 SW and Kodachrome 64. I tried Silver Fast but a) think the interface is foul and b) get inferior results. I also have Vuescan. For negatives the results are first rate. For slides the results are awful. And I mean really awful. The colours are way out. I have tried adjusting the settings to no avail. And for Kodachrome 64 the noise is way to high. Has Hamrick decided that it is not worth bothering to get Vuescan to produce good slide scans with the 4000T given that the native software is so good? Seems a shame to me as I know from experience with a Nikon LS30 that Vuescan can be good. Leif. - L.S. Goodwin - S/W Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thales Instruments Ltd. Tel:+44 (0) 1628 604455 ext 290 480 Bath Road Tel:07754 006 473 (Mobile- BT CellNet) Burnham Fax:+44 (0) 1628 662017 Slough Berkshire SL1 6BE England *** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. It is intended only for the stated addressee(s) and access to it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this e-mail. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform RACAL INSTRUMENTS LTD. immediately by phoning +44 (0)1628 604455 (ask for the I.T. dept) and delete it and all copies from your system. ***
