[filmscanners] ADMIN: Msgs not appearing?
I'm seeing occasional message posting attempts failing because they are misaddressed. The address to send to for distribution to this list is filmscanners@halftone.co.uk *NOT* filmscanners_owner If you send to any other address it will not work, so please re-send. *AND* If you send from any other address than your subscribed address, mail will be presumed an attempt to spam the list and will silently fail. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/elitecoolscan.htm is the first result on googling for nikon 5000 ed minolta vs scan dual... you can try other links there as well. I was comparing these two scanners too, and finally settled on Nikon. They are both very good quality scanners. As the review suggests, nikon may not do too well with silver-based emulsions. So get a Minolta if you mailnly use this media. Otherwise, I have also heard that Minolta auto focus doesn't always produce the best results. One more thing you can do is look for lists for these two independent scanners (where owners of these scanners post to get resolution of issues they may be facing). Soon, you will see the pattern emerge and understand the short-comings of these two scanners. (For example, in one of the Minolta user lists, I saw a separate section to discuss issues with auto focus and detailed mails on how to get the best results... proof that you may have to complete a PhD before you could get the best results from the Minolta... Of course, I have not used the scanner, so I will not know). -Navjot On 6/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone seen a good objective review and comparison of the Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED vs. the equivalent Konica-Minolta film scanner? Mr. Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under the autofocus option. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Kersenbrock Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Left out of the review are issues of focus at the edge of the film plane, where some say Nikon doesn't have sufficient depth of field to handle film curvature. And that's part of the problem with the Minolta (I have the 5400 1) in that the autofocus spot defaults to the center, so if there's a curve to the film that may not be the best spot (also not good if there are no boundaries there to focus on). One can, of course, easily click-pick the autofocus spot somewhere else on the prescan image, but then it's not entirely auto (and is what I do). Mike K. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
The truth is you shouldn't be trying to scan slides in their original cardboard mounts. They should be either remounted in glass or a high quality glassless mount (Wess or Gepe) that will hold the film flat. No amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat. If the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners. Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under the autofocus option. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still holds. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? The truth is you shouldn't be trying to scan slides in their original cardboard mounts. They should be either remounted in glass or a high quality glassless mount (Wess or Gepe) that will hold the film flat. No amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat. If the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners. Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under the autofocus option. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
I am addressing your comments, directly... My point being that if you took the time to remount your slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the equipment you own or the easiest scan. You can't have both. If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard mounts. Scanners don't use them. Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) will cure the problem. Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning (not on these two scanners, though). Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still holds. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
Laurie Solomon wrote: So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under the autofocus option. No, I don't think I said that. I only talked about one or two aspects of Minolta's problem with the default autofocus (using their software). After all, that's half of the subject and the half I know at least a little about (having one). As to it applying to the Nikon scanner, I leave others with the Nikon to provide the comparison after my mentioning details in the 5400 and how I get around it. I'm not attacking the Nikon as you suggest, I don't have one and don't know enough to say anything about it. In any case, although I have used the manual focus knob, I've found it also useful to use autofocus, however I set the focus point on the slide to a more appropriate point rather than the default dead-center. Mike K. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
My point being that if you took the time to remount your slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. True, but the curvature of film is not always due to the mounting but can be due to a number of other factors. No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. Also true, but performance of either or any scanner can be improved and in some cases even remedied where the curvature is slight by being able to switch from autofocus the uses the center of the film to manual focus where you can define the target area of the film so as make some sort of adjustment for any curvature toward the edges of the film. My point and the point of the discussion was not to suggest a workflow that will minimize the effects of out-of-focus film edges but to note in a comparative evaluation of the two scanners the features that each has or lacks. If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard mounts. Scanners don't use them. That lens was not specifically for cardboard mounted film but for any film in any glassless mount that may pop as a result of projector heat. It did not work on all instances of warping and even caused other unwanted distortions. Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) will cure the problem. That procedure is not the cure for the problem; but it is a possible remedy for some instances of the problem but not all since there are many causes for warping of film. A more effective solution with some film scanners that have film holders that use a thin clear plastic or glass sandwich that encompasses the film chip and holds it flat; but those sorts of film holders are not available for all film scanners. Even when they are available, they create problems of their own (e.g., dirt and fingerprint collection on the four sides of the glass or plastic, Newton's Rings, and scratches on the plastic or glass surfaces. Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning (not on these two scanners, though). What is the point of mentioning something that is inappropriate to the two film scanners in question; moreover, that was not the point of the original post or the replies which was to compare the two film scanners as hardware devices primarily and their scanning software secondarily. It was not a discussion of scanning workflows and techniques, which one can carry out independent of any mention of particular scanners. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? I am addressing your comments, directly... My point being that if you took the time to remount your slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the equipment you own or the easiest scan. You can't have both. If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard mounts. Scanners don't use them. Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) will cure the problem. Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning (not on these two scanners, though). Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still holds. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
