RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
>> well first of all if you want they have a bug fix version >> of Nikon Scan Version 3.1 on their website.. I think the >> address is www.nikon-imaging.com Thanks. I couldn't access that URL for some reason, but found 3.1 at http://www.nikontechusa.com. I also notice that on that site it mentions that Nikon Scan 3.1 does not support Windows XP. However, they also claim that an XP-compatible version of Nikon Scan is coming out before the end of Nobember (free download).
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
> Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out > against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a > slide film. I have to support Mikel. Recently I was able to scan photos with my FS4000 and the same negatives/slides were scanned with Nikon. The scans from Nikon are very smoth (nearly no grain) but also all of them are just blured. If you apply "despeckle" filter to Canon scan once or even twice you will get the same image as from Nikon (very small noises but blured). Regards Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
Hi Mark The URL he gave doesn`t exist. Nikon Scan V3.1 does work with XP I use it all the time. Nikon Scan V3.1.1 is due soon, that supposedly fixes various bugs. But Nikon offical line will allows be that it doesn`t support XP, because if they said it did they would have to provide techincal assitance to those that use that product. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.jamesgrove.co.uk www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Otway Sent: 16 November 2001 08:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions >> well first of all if you want they have a bug fix version >> of Nikon Scan Version 3.1 on their website.. I think the >> address is www.nikon-imaging.com Thanks. I couldn't access that URL for some reason, but found 3.1 at http://www.nikontechusa.com. I also notice that on that site it mentions that Nikon Scan 3.1 does not support Windows XP. However, they also claim that an XP-compatible version of Nikon Scan is coming out before the end of Nobember (free download).
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I agree with you Bill absolutely. LS IVED behaves in the same way. I agree with units you mentioned - which applied to real word mean to "measure" via the software uneveness of film position in the holder which must not be more than 12 units and to put focus in the middle. If the number is higher than app. 12 focus units I have to go with glass. Generally better eveness I get with stripes than with single frames but that is logical. My 0,02$ Vlad -- . o I have a number of these slides where the Nikon cannot produce sharp scans across the entire image. o The NikonScan software lets me place the focus point anywhere on the image I like, and will give me razor sharp scans at that point. However other regions of the image will consequently become blurry. o When you manually set the focus point (by clicking the preview image where you want the scanner to focus), the scanner will focus at that point and report a number. By clicking around you can compare the various focus numbers. o Regions that are within 6 focus units of the focus point (the scanner just gives a number, doesn't say whether this represents microns, angstroms, or what) will be substantially as sharp as at the focus point. o Regions that are 12 units different from the focus point will be noticeably blurry. o I have not done as much work with negative strips as I have with slides. I do see some focus variation across negative images but so far it doesn't seem as bad as for my most-curved slides. --Bill -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com == --- Príchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.298 / Virová báze: 161 - datum vydání: 13.11.2001 --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.298 / Virová báze: 161 - datum vydání: 13.11.2001
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
Tony, I appreciate your effort in maintaining the list, and would hate to see it go away. It seems to me, however, that how best to store images generated from filmscanners fully satisfies the "issues arising from the use of" clause in the charter, and is therefore not off topic. I agree that the thread degenerated into less practically useful info than I had hoped to glean from it. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else. > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:43:37 +1100 Kevin Power > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > I'm with you as it sure does get bitchy at times! If it happened on a > > list > > that I run, the offending member/s would get zapped along with their > > messages. > > > > Kevin. > > Unortunately the remote admin of this list does not permit such easy > interdiction. All I can do is remove people and keep them removed. > > It is quite clear from the list charter that this list exists for the > purpose of discussing filmscanners. I understand that sometimes > conversations veer off topic, but I expect contributors to exercise > restraint and take OT threads off list if they cannot be kept brief. > > Good manners are mandatory. Argument about ideas is fine, personal attacks > are not. > > If anyone feels they cannot stick to the rules, they have two choices : > leave, or be removed. > > Frankly I have had such a lot of trouble with this list lately, with admin > taking up so much time I seldom have time to read up to date, > let alone participate. 250 bounce mails today, and that after I spent >1hr > weeding dead addresses; complaints from list members about conduct of some > participants; inquiries about getting on or off the list, and so on. > Furthermore the hosting renewal is so expensive that I am beginning to > wonder why I don't just close it. > > I would rather not, because it is genuinely useful to a lot of people, but > I would ask everyone to think carefully about whether what they are about > to post is (a)a genuine question or (b)helpful, polite, relevant and of > interest to a filmscanner community of ~1,500 people. IF NOT, DON'T. > > Here is the introductory text everyone gets when they subscribe. Please > read it :- > === > Welcome to the filmscanners mailing list. Please read the following. If > you have subscribed to this list previously, please note that some > commands and addresses have changed since October 2000. > > By participating in the filmscanners list you agree to these terms, > and you should save a copy of this message for future reference. > This document is also available at www.halftone.co.uk and you may > also subscribe or unsubscribe from there. > > You can instead subscribe to a Digest sent each day, > or, during busy periods, more often. The Digest contains all > messages posted to the list on that day, as a single email. > Many people prefer this to 'real time' receipt of many separate > emails. HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DIGEST IS READ ONLY : YOU > CANNOT POST TO THE LIST IF YOU ARE A DIGEST SUBSCRIBER. If you wish to > post you will need to subscribe to the list proper. Please do not mail me > and complain about this, this aspect of configuration is outside my > control. > > ADDRESS FOR POSTING CONTRIBUTIONS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ADDRESS FOR COMMANDS eg 'help', 'subscribe' etc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > HUMAN ASSISTANCE (last resort please!) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > HOST WEBSITE > http://www.halftone.co.uk Tony Sleep Photography > > UNSUBSCRIBING > Please see the COMMANDS section below > > LIST CHARTER > This list exists for the purpose of: > > - discussing purchasing decisions > - discussing issues arising from the use of filmscanners > - discussing reviews and other material available on WWW > - disseminating news of new film scanners, drivers and >software > - notifying you of updates of http://www.halftone.co.uk, >the host of this list > > RULES > > 1. Posting in plain text is required; HTML or MicroSoft > formatted email is not welcome as it adds to bandwidth and > many mail clients cannot understand it and present an > illegible mess. MS Outlook users should take special care to > turn off the default HTML by selecting 'Send as plain text'. > > 2. Posting encoded image binaries is permitted if they are > relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG > image encoding, and MIME attachment. Larger files will > be bounced by Majordomo. However a better mechanism is > to display the image on a web page and post the URL in an > email. You may only post images which fulfil legal > requirements regarding copyright. > > 3. Off topic messages. Whilst it is the nature of list discussions that > ongoing conversations will sometimes veer Off Topic, I ask that members > use restraint and good judgement. OT discussion
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Hi Ken, One thing I've learned long ago is that simple questions rarely create simple answers. The first problem is that of definition of terms. There are many types of printers used with computers, and there are many different types of each subclass, each using different methods of achieving their aims. But, let's just speak about color inkjet printers, since that is what most people in this forum probably use. The strategy is "simple", that being to attempt to reproduce as many colors as possible with the least number of inks and complexity. As you probably know, most inkjet printers used by consumers fall into two basic categories. Ones which use a CMYK inkset, and ones which use a CcMmYk set. Commercial inkjet printer often use other ink sets which might include green and orange, or yet other combinations. Let's take a quick look at how colors are produced with a standard inkjet printer. CMYK. The only "real" ink colors these printers can produce are: C = cyan M = magenta y = yellow K = black CM = blue CY = green MY = red CYM = process "black" (more a muddy dark brown usually Since adding K (Black) to any of the colors, pretty much overprints the color, those combinations don't produce any real "colors" to speak of. Now, not only is the above list pretty limited, but it also is indicating only one specific shade of each of those colors. Not very helpful when making a photographic image. So, here is where a trick of the eye gets involved. By using a mixture of a grouping of different colored dots, the space around them (the paper) and in some cases, a variation of dot size, the printer creates the illusion, using a dithering pattern of some sort, to trick our eyes into seeing a lot of colors. This is not all that different from how offset presses mix printers inks to create magazine images, which can, when properly printed, rival photographs themselves. The type of "matrix" used to create a wide variety of colors via an inkjet printer varies with the manufacturer, ink types and color densities, and whether the printer overprints or not. There are some basic formulas for determining how many "cells" or dots of ink one needs to produce different bit depth interpretations, but frankly, I don't find it all that useful. In the case of an image which is downsampled to some ridiculously low resolution, the printer is printing a series of "cells" together all with similar information to make up the large "pixel" representation. What is important to understand, however, through all of this is that if a printer claims 300 dpi, or 600, or 720, or 1440 or even 2400 or 2880, that does not translate to resolution of one color pixel (well unless it was a perfectly translatable ink color as shown above (cyan, magenta, etc,.)) If you read any printing list about inkjets you will see many disagreements as to what the maximum resolution a printer can use as source material before it becomes overkill. Epson, for instance, used to recommend 240 dpi or ppi input for their 720 x 720 dpi printers. Most people will tell you that there 1440 by 720 printers show little improvement beyond 340 dpi. As to if anything more is achieved or achievable in their 2880 x 720 dpi printer, is hard to determine. What you need to know is that all inkjet printers require many less individual pixels as input in relationship to their advertised resolution at output. That number usually simply means that is the resolution that the printer can address one specific location on the paper, but it only means that the printer can deposit one drop of ink at that site, not that the printer can produce any specific color at that site. So you don't want to scan at 1440 dpi at full size to deliver a file to an Epson 1440 dpi printer, the driver will just toss all that extra info, and slow down the processing, require a bigger printer spool space, and make for ghastly huge files. In regard to your question about printer driver resolution, again each printer operates differently. Some produce less, but larger drops of ink in lower modes, and therefore may produce a lower number of perceived colors, or a coarser look. I'm not sure a lot of ink is saved, but printing time is usually faster. The truth of the matter of how many drops are needed to produce a specific color, depends upon the color one is trying to create. Art Ken During wrote: > Ok, I have I think I simple question, stemming out of my study of > Wayne Fulton's scanning tips. Just getting clear, so forgive me if > it's a stupid question. > > On page 67 of that book he shows a tiny 32 pixel image scaled to 5 > dpi. It's printed as a 6.4 inch graphic with pixels that are, > obviously, 1/5 inch in size. My question is, what does this say about > print resolution? The printer is obviously using a certain number of > dots to produce one pixel. Is this number of dots specified simply by > selecting the print resolu
Re: filmscanners: Air cleaner
You might want to consider a HEPA air cleaner over an ionizer cleaner. Ozone created as a byproduct may damage your prints. Honeywell has an extensive line. The "Target" store chain in US used to carry a good selection, but you can get them at Best Buy, many other places. David Lewiston wrote: > A few days ago I came across a reference to an electronic air cleaner. I > thought it was in a post to this list, but now I can't find it. > > I'd appreciate a pointer to the relevant website. > > Thanks & salutations, David L -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film) from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans were not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans looked pretty good but when viewed side by side with howtek scans, the difference was obvious. I imagine that the nikon glass holders would have solved that nicely. For the money, if you get one that works correctly for you, the 8000's are amazing units... Lawrence -- Lawrence W. Smith Photography http://www.lwsphoto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
RE: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
Tony, >> Frankly I have had such a lot of trouble with this list >> lately, with admin taking up so much time I seldom have >> time to read up to date, let alone participate. 250 bounce >> mails today, and that after I spent >1hr weeding dead >> addresses; complaints from list members about >> conduct of some participants; inquiries about getting on >> or off the list, and so on. Furthermore the hosting renewal >> is so expensive that I am beginning to >> wonder why I don't just close it. Alternatively, you could move the list to a yahoogroups list. I'm on several lists which use this service (and I moderate two), and it's very simple and convenient. Bounces are managed automatically, and members can manage their subscriptions easily and efficiently. There's also a shared files are which can host up to 20Mb of files, making a useful place to exchange example images (rather than post them to the list as attachments). It'll cost you nothing to host, either. Sure, some ads are placed at the bottom of the posts that are sent, but there are various utilities in mail clients which can strip these out. I'd seriously consider it, as it could improve the list experience for everyone here, not least of all you as the Admin! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
sorry about that did not remember the website address.. the site also has a firmware upgrade for the scanner also... = - Original Message - From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:10 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions > >> well first of all if you want they have a bug fix version > >> of Nikon Scan Version 3.1 on their website.. I think the > >> address is www.nikon-imaging.com > > Thanks. I couldn't access that URL for some reason, but found 3.1 at > http://www.nikontechusa.com. > > I also notice that on that site it mentions that Nikon Scan 3.1 does not > support Windows XP. However, they also claim that an XP-compatible > version of Nikon Scan is coming out before the end of Nobember (free > download). >
RE: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Thank you for that very informative post. There is one issue I believe warrants clarification, IMO. > So you don't want to scan at 1440 dpi at full size to deliver a > file to an Epson 1440 dpi printer, the driver will just toss all that > extra info, The driver should/does not just "toss" the data, it should use it intelligently and algorithmically to arrive at the required dither pattern. If you had a sequence of data 0010 and wanted to cut that data by four, would you make the result a 0 or a 1? Well, the way it should do it is take into consideration surrounding data, and intelligently arrive at the result. So, though the data set IS reduced in your example, the data is used to arrive at the resultant dithering, not just tossed out.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
> I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the > time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film) > from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans were > not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans looked > pretty good but when viewed side by side with howtek scans, the difference > was obvious. I imagine that the nikon glass holders would have solved that > nicely. For the money, if you get one that works correctly for you, the > 8000's are amazing units... I've had this problem with about 30% of the images I scan with the 8000. Most of the problem images are unmounted single-frame 120 transparencies. For these the glass holder does work rather well, with no negative impact on the images that I can see. The glass holder is rather expensive though, and really, it's something that should be shipped in the 8000 box.
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Arthur - Thank you very much for a considered explanation. I'm studying it! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
RE: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
Tony, I would hate to see you close the list. I, for one, have learned a lot from many of the members and their contributions and want to thank you fro creating, maintaining and especially contributing to this list. Having said that, I confess I rarely review posts in detail anymore, with the exception of posts by a few who I know will be concise, informative and within the bounds of the list, because there is just so much that is either off topic, argumentative or so esoteric that it is of little use to me. Some of these 'discussions' just go on and on forever without even bothering to correct the topic of the thread, which has long since strayed far from the original subject, often from the purpose of the list. I can understand your frustration & time limitations. Unfortunately, I have to agree with others and say that I think a more severe hand and more intensive monitoring and control is in order to return this list to something more generally beneficial. Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Hello Lawrence Nice to here from you again. What kind of drum scanner and price? Best regards Mikael Risedal -- >From: Lawrence Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "filmscanners halftone.co.uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:45:19 -0500 > >I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the >time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film) >from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans >were >not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans looked >pretty good but when viewed side by side with howtek scans, the difference >was obvious. I imagine that the nikon glass holders would have solved that >nicely. For the money, if you get one that works correctly for you, the >8000's are amazing units... > >Lawrence > > > >-- >Lawrence W. Smith Photography >http://www.lwsphoto.com >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >-- > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan
I'm a new owner of this scanner and I'm wondering if anyone else has a problem with Silverfast and Photoshop! So far version 5.2 and 5.5 will not run on my Photoshop (6.0) and the tech guy doesn't seem to know why. Any ideas? Should I just skip it and go to Vuescan? What are the advantages of Vuescan? Thanks for any replies. Barbara Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
filmscanners: Silverfast Update trouble
Just paid for my update (LS1000) received the orderconfirmation but my password was not included. Anyone know if it will come as a seperate sending. The confirmation page on the site indicates that it will be supplied with the confirmation. Kindest Regards Chris Bangs
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
But a number of months ago you claimed success in focusing by selecting a focus point midway between the center an edge. Are you backing away from this? thanks, Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > The answer is NO to your question below Brian. > Do a test by your self. Take a slide or negative film. Select the auto focus > in the middle (NikonScan 3.1 or silverfast) and scan. > Look at the results. Choose a new auto focus point the the corner or side > of the film and scan. > You get 2 different results. One are grain sharp in the middle and unsharp > in the corner. The other are sharp in the corner and not sharp in the > middle. You can never get equal sharpness over the whole film with a Nikon > scanner. I have done this test with 4 different > Ls 4000 scanner - same results. You get only a overall sharp picture > from the LS4000 scanner if you put the film in a glass frame. All film > curves a little bit and the lack of depth of field in LS 4000 produce a > poor overall resolution . ( Imacon scannner have F-stop 8 ) I belive LS4000 > lens are wide open. > This is well known problem by Nikon , but Polaroid and now Canon can handle > the problem without any glass mounted film frames. > In last Photokina Germany sept 2000 i discussed the problem with Nikon. > Nothing yet are done to solve the problem > Best Regards Mikael Risedal > > > > >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:49:22 -0500 > > > >OK Mikael, let me ask a follow-up question. I am a beginner so your > >knowledge clearly surpasses mine. I've been reading your comments (as well > >as others) on this issue for months now. My question is the following: are > >you able to reclaim proper sharpness through the judicious use of > >sharpening > >techniques in Photoshop. I ask because I purchased a Nikon 4000 scanner a > >number of months ago and I am able to get much better results from the > >resultant images out of Photoshop than I was ever able to get through the > >use of professional photofinisher. > > > >thanks, > > > >Brian > >-- > >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:01 AM > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > > Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus. > > > Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out > > > against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a > > > slide film. > > > > > > Next small jpg file are from our test motive . The test motive shows in > >the > > > middle of the jpg file. This is from the left corner. > > > I hope that every one can se the difference in resolution and sharpness. > > > Look below the text. > > > Nikon have a big problem with the depth of field. Best results gets with > > > glass framed film and 100% film flatness. Low light source and to open > > > f-stop lens construction is the main problem. Im a owner of 2 Nikon > >scanner > > > LS2000 and LS 4000, they have the same problem. > > > Best regards > > > Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:53 -0500 > > > > > > > >Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon > >4000 > > > >frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an > >out-of-focus > > > >Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? > > > > > > > >Brian > > > >-- > > > >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > > > >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM > > > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > > > > > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and > > > >same > > > > > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film > >area > > > >if > > > > > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of > > > >field. > > > > > > > > > > > >The test shows that a combination of Can
Re: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan
Try out Vuescan and see if you like it - trial download is free. The essential differences are that Vuescan is designed to (and does) capture *all* information from the slide or film, and then you adjust color, tone and contrast in Photoshop. Silverfast is designed to do color, tone and contrast adjustment at the scan stage such that you (hopefully) will need no more, or perhaps just minimal adjustments in Photoshop. I go the Vuescan route myself - I feel I can adjust better in Photoshop post-processing than at the scan stage where I see only the preview, and I am confident Vuescan captures every bit of information that I need to do so. Maris - Original Message - From: "Barbara White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan | I'm a new owner of this scanner and I'm wondering if anyone else has a | problem with Silverfast and Photoshop! So far version 5.2 and 5.5 will | not run on my Photoshop (6.0) and the tech guy doesn't seem to know why. | Any ideas? | | Should I just skip it and go to Vuescan? What are the advantages of Vuescan? | | Thanks for any replies. | | Barbara | Barbara White/Architectural Photography | http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
Re: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan
Barbara, you'll need to provide a lot more info than "it don't work!" Lots of folk on this forum know lots about many things, but none have yet claimed any expertise at mind reading. Ian
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
"Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alternatively, you could move the list to a yahoogroups list. Which also allow more than one moderator so the work can be shared. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan
Barbara, Might need a little bit of info on the definition of "does not work". Platform, OS version etc. Also who have you been talking to at Lasersoft? I will say that as Silverfast is a Photoshop Plugin, Photoshop can sometimes cause the problem. Rather than chase it is sometimes easier to de-install both Photoshop and the Silverfast Plugin and reinstall from scratch. David -Original Message- From: Barbara White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan I'm a new owner of this scanner and I'm wondering if anyone else has a problem with Silverfast and Photoshop! So far version 5.2 and 5.5 will not run on my Photoshop (6.0) and the tech guy doesn't seem to know why. Any ideas? Should I just skip it and go to Vuescan? What are the advantages of Vuescan? Thanks for any replies. Barbara Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I also have just done some tests with my LS4000 and can conclude exactly the same. Differences in 10 or or focus units shows a definite blur in those areas. Some people are mentioning that they use glass and I suppose I must also do this if I am to get sharp scans - what a pain! Are there any recommended glass mounts which people are getting good results with? I really want a mount that will not crop any of the edges of the image and where the glass itself does not interfere with the quality of the scan. Tony On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 11:19:18AM +0100, Vladislav Jurco wrote: > I agree with you Bill absolutely. LS IVED behaves in the same way. I agree > with units you mentioned - which applied to real word mean to "measure" via > the software uneveness of film position in the holder which must not be more > than 12 units and to put focus in the middle. If the number is higher than > app. 12 focus units I have to go with glass. Generally better eveness I get > with stripes than with single frames but that is logical. > > My 0,02$ > > Vlad > -- > . > o I have a number of these slides where the Nikon cannot produce > sharp scans across the entire image. > > o The NikonScan software lets me place the focus point anywhere on > the image I like, and will give me razor sharp scans at that point. > However other regions of the image will consequently become blurry. > > o When you manually set the focus point (by clicking the preview > image where you want the scanner to focus), the scanner will focus at > that point and report a number. By clicking around you can compare > the various focus numbers. > > o Regions that are within 6 focus units of the focus point (the > scanner just gives a number, doesn't say whether this represents > microns, angstroms, or what) will be substantially as sharp as at the > focus point. > > o Regions that are 12 units different from the focus point will be > noticeably blurry. > > > o I have not done as much work with negative strips as I have with > slides. I do see some focus variation across negative images but so > far it doesn't seem as bad as for my most-curved slides. > > > --Bill > --
