[filmscanners] Re: IT8 target and reference file to lend, BUY INEXPENSIVE
Erik Many thanks. A great source of targets and much cheaper than Lasersoft! Simon - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:04 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: IT8 target and reference file to lend, BUY INEXPENSIVE Hi! check this: http://www.targets.coloraid.de/ Regards Erik Kaffehr torsdagen den 27 februari 2003 11.37 skrev du: Hi Does anyone have an IT8 target (6X7cm preferably) and reference file that I cna use to calibrate my Epson 3200? I ordered Silverfast Ai and got a reflective target which, although it has meant I can produce absolutely spot on colour reproduction from flatbed scans, it is of no use to me for my 6X6 transparencies. I am of course willing to pay a rental charge for the use of the target as I know you good people would have had to pay for it. I am in London, UK. Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?
On 26/01/03 21:44, Tim Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a few years, Nikon, Canon, Polaroid, Minolta were all outdoing each other producing better general level filmscanners culminating in, for example, the LS2000 or 4000 for Nikon. My feeling is, that with the huge boom in pro level digital, the need for these kind of scanners has reduced (or at least levelled off), and the scanners themselves seem to have reached a level of performance that is acceptable for most requirements. So, as far as desktop film scanners go, do people think that this is about as good as it gets for now? I can see some moderate improvements being made here and there, and maybe a new model or two. But I think that for the foreseeable future, the sort of rapid development and arrival of new models has probably levelled out. What do people think? Tim I has this debate a couple of weeks ago and I agree with your views. I think that the equipment is out there now to make superb scans and, with the right scan resolution, you can also make very large prints. A medium format negative scanned on an LS8000 will produce huge prints is needed. I don't think scanner manufacturers will be making any significant investment in designing a new generation of scanners as I think that digital capture in the camera will negate the need for film and scanners (for those that desire or need to negate it), and I believe that all the quality that one needs is already out there. Everything from my LS30 to an Imacon 848 can be bought, used and provide and increasing level of quality. Digital cameras may not kill off film in the next 5-10 years, but I bet it will kill of scanner development. What we may see is the rise of the flatbed, since this technology is catching up in terms of ppi, dynamic range etc., and there are other drivers for producing the technology, not just film scanning. Look at the Epson 3200 or Artixscan 1800f to see some seriously good specifications, rivaling some of the current dedicated film scanners. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scansonLS4000EDandotherissues
Brian You seems to be a happy LS4000 user. How do you scan black white negs (assuming you do)? Nikon clearly stated that you cannot use RGB positive as the frame gaps are not recognised (I had this issue myself). Do you use mono settings? If so, how do you clean the negs and/or scans as I saw too many speckles, scratches etc. (far more than on an SS120 scan) to be able to do a satisfactory job of cleaning after the scan. Thanks. Simon On 30/6/02 1:26 pm, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to what I can get from an enlarger, my Nikon 4000 is a god-send-no problem with depth of focus problems either. Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shunith Dutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:13 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues No problem here either :) SD - Original Message - From: Bruce M. Burnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:48 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues Austin, You assume that everyone with a Nikon scanner has depth of focus issues. But not me nor the three others that I personally know who use them. No depth of focus problems. I am not saying that there isn't an issue with depth of focus, but that some units(or maybe we just have flat film)do not exhibit the problem. Bruce Burnett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues Hi Todd, Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same neg printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've done is taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed it with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH. Likewise if they print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a coldlight it will look flat. Well, it has been well proven that you can get the same density range from the same negative with a cold light or a point light source, using appropriate exposure time, aperture and grade of paper (or filter), so that is a non-issue. The other issues are the Callier effect, sharpness, dust, scratches and tonality (dynamic range). the Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be compensated for as needed. What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust? How do you compensate for that? Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an issue or not ;-) Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong. Understood. Me too. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 ED and otherissues
Here is a response from Nikon regarding the issue of scanning black and white as RGB on the LS4000 ED (the interframe gap issue) and the subject of picking up imperfections and grain. Scanning BW as RGB Positive: 'You should not scan black white negative film as a colour positive. The exposure settings colour response of the scanner will be different and the scanner will fail to register the frames correctly as this is a function that is optically sensed. A black white negative should be scanned as such and if the scanner is used correctly should produce better results than a poorly set-up scan corrected in Photoshop.' Grain and film base imperfections: 'If a scanner did not pick up imperfections present in the film then I would worry about what detail it was missing in the image itself. It is true that the light-source and quality of the optics in the scanner does mean that more imperfections are recorded than other manufacturers products however it also means that more image detail sharper scans are produced. Unfortunately the ICE technology relies on the passage of infra-red light through the film which precludes it from being used on black white negatives due to their optical properties. XP2 or any C41 process black white film will however be completely usable with ICE.' I pass this on for information for anyone considering the LS4000 ED and who may wish to do black and white scanning. Simon Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi Simon, Thanks for acknowledging that some things I say pan out in the real world ;-) The problems you are experiencing with the LS4000ED are: 1) LIGHT Source 2) LIGHT source 3) Light source (repeat down the page). The Nikon LED collimated light source doesn't ONLY make DDS (Dust, dirt, and scratches) more visible, but also G (grain). Hence, my coining DDSG as the short cut. WHY? Because the contrast is increased between the grain edge and the open space. There is a minimal antialiasing that occurs even with the grain when a diffused source of light is used. It is meaningless in terms of sharpness but it provides a buffer to reduce aliasing. Any slight loss of this type that might occur can be retrieved during USM anyway. I'm sure Kennedy can explain this in much better terminology than I, but the result is simply that collimated light increases the visibility of these film features and the more the contrast and definition is to begin at the transition of an edge (which is after all what determines frequency) the more aliasing that takes place. With something like real black and white where the grain is physical and opaque (not a transparent dye cloud) this problem will be further emphasized. This is also happening with color films with this LED light source, but it is less objectionable (until you start using the USM and it rears its ugly head more prominently). This is just one reason why I promote scanners with diffused light sources, and defocusing built into the optical path. And, for the 10+14e time, (and this is not directed to you specifically, Simon, as you probably know this), grain is not sharpness, grain is not resolution, grain is an artifact, a mechanical/chemical film feature it is not the image it is a building block of the photographic image. If I could see the atomic structure of matter, I might be able to look at my desk stapler and tell you it was made of assorted electrons, neutrons, protons and electrical bonds between them, and I MIGHT even be able to recognize those patterns as certain specific types of atoms, and even molecules and mixtures of metal alloys, due to my worldly experience, and yet still be unable to see its as a stapler. If I want a stapler, being able to see atomic structure really doesn't get me much closer to recognizing one. If I am looking for a friend in a crowd, screening for organic life form or even human life form is not that useful. Yes, yes, I know, if I could read DNA sequences and knew theirs I could find them OK, now this is just getting silly ;-) Art Simon Lamb wrote: Responses in the text below: Major A wrote: Simon, I tried scanning some Delta 100 black and white negs on a Nikon LS4000 ED and the quality was awful, using either Nikon Scan 3.1.3 or Vuescan. I tried scanning as monochrome, as colour and as colour positive and inverting in Photoshop. In all cases the preview image looked fine but the actual scan showed tiny white spots all over the images. I use an LS-30 and have the same problem. The little specks are dust or similar defects on the negative. ICE doesn't work for silver-based film list Delta 100. You would see the same thing on colour negative if you turned ICE off, I think. I also use an LS-30 and do not see the problem as badly as with the LS4000, probably due to the reduced ppi resolution. However, using the Flextight Photo and the Sprintscan 120 on the same neg produced a much, much cleaner scan. I suspect the LED light source of the Nikon scanners
[filmscanners] Black and white scans on LS4000 ED and other issues
I tried scanning some Delta 100 black and white negs on a Nikon LS4000 ED and the quality was awful, using either Nikon Scan 3.1.3 or Vuescan. I tried scanning as monochrome, as colour and as colour positive and inverting in Photoshop. In all cases the preview image looked fine but the actual scan showed tiny white spots all over the images. I can't seems to get a good black and white scan at all. Can anyone tell me how to get good black and white scans? When scanning colour slides (Provia 100F and Kodak EBX 100) the scans have too much red in them. Is this a facet of this scanner? When scanning a strip of slides (or negs) in the strip film adapter, the left edge of the preview image and scanned image is not straight, it bows in at the centre and into the image area. Has anyone else seen this? It is annoying as I had to crop a part of the image when I didn't actually want to. Also, the preview in Nikon scan looks very clear whereas the actual completed scan image in the Nikon Scan window looks muddy and grainy, and you can see the white spots, that I mentioned above, on the image. Any help, answers or opinions on these would be welcome. Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandother issues
On 25/6/02 7:08 pm, w shumaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, Did you have digital ICE turned on or off? Silver blocks infrared. I don't have the LS4000, but would like to get one myself, *if* it will do BW. Wayne Digital Ice was off. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan not finding monitor ICC profile on MacOSX
Julian Thanks for this answer and for the previous one on the OSX compatability issue with Vuescan. I shall create a new profile with Photocal and put the .icc extension at the end. Simon Julian Vrieslander wrote: On 6/20/02 8:04 PM, Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just downloaded the latest version of Vuescan (7.5.34). In the Colour tab I selected 'ICC Profile' in the list of options next to Monitor Colour Space. I then wanted to select my custom monitor profile that I created using Photocal and which I named Photocal CPD-G200. This profile is stored in the System Folder/ColorSync Profiles location. The problem is that nearly all of the profiles are greyed out and not selectable, including my monitor profile. Has anyone else had this problem, and if so found a way around it? The profile needs to have a file extension (.icc or .icm), or VueScan will not let you select it. Mac OS does not require these extensions, but apparently they are needed in Windows, and Ed is using a cross-platform color management library. A word of warning: Mac OS X (which I think you are using) is still a bit flaky in the way it handles file extensions, especially when you are adding or deleting them from file names. I had a custom monitor profile, generated by Spyder/OptiCAL, with no extension in the file anme. I added the .icc suffix, and this triggered some sort of corruption in my HD directories. All my profiles became invisible to the Monitors control panel. Fortunately, running Disk Utility fixed the damaage. I generated a new profile from scratch, using OptiCAL, and gave it a name with the .icc suffix. This profile was recognized by VueScan. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Vuescan and Nikon Scan for OS X
There was an old restriction when using Vuescan on a Mac (might have applied to PC also) with Nikon scanners that certain files had to be deleted or extensions removed or Vuescan would not recognise the scanner. Is this still the case when using Vuescan for OS X and Nikon Scan for OS X? Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Vuescan not finding monitor ICC profile on Mac OSX
Hi I just downloaded the latest version of Vuescan (7.5.34). In the Colour tab I selected 'ICC Profile' in the list of options next to Monitor Colour Space. I then wanted to select my custom monitor profile that I created using Photocal and which I named Photocal CPD-G200. This profile is stored in the System Folder/ColorSync Profiles location. The problem is that nearly all of the profiles are greyed out and not selectable, including my monitor profile. Has anyone else had this problem, and if so found a way around it? Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glasscarrier availabile soon
Art This was Polaroid UK who I spoke to and they had been advised by Polaroid Corp not to expect any more Sprintscan scanners after the current production had been sold. I was referring to the SS120 although they said 'Sprintscan' and not 'SS120' when they talked about discontinuation. They did say the scanner line would continue to be supported, for hardware repairs and firmware upgrades, but they did not say if Polaroid would be making repairs or Microtek or another third party. I believe that they were trying to be open with me as they know it is a big investment and that a buyer wants to be assured of some longevity in their purchase. As for bringing out a glass carrier, I suspect it has been around for a while albeit only just released, and I wouldn't base my expectation of the future of the scanners line on the availability of a new holder. Then again, I wish I could as the SS120 is superb and deserves to continue. Simon - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:43 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glasscarrier availabile soon Hi Simon, I am going to try to get some more details about this situation. Have you been told that this is try of all products in the Sprintscan line, or just the SS120? Also, are you sure this isn't just a situation for non-North American distribution. Lastly, it is certainly possible the name will be changed after a sell off of the division. I'll see what I can dig up about this. Art Simon Lamb wrote: Two pieces of information gained from a chap at Polaroid digital. 1. As someone suggested a few days ago, once all remaining stock of the Sprintscan range are sold there will be no more and production has ceased. Firmware upgrades will continue to be made available when required. 2. The glass carrier (a full length carrier the same size as the existing 120 carrier) will be available to order from the end of next week (in the UK at least, maybe now or sooner in the US) at a retail price of £85 + VAT (cheap compared to the £300 Nikon carrier). It will require a firmware upgrade which will be available on the Polaroid web-site. I wonder and hope that someone might pick up the scanner line. I think Polaroid, very much in the same vein as Apple, have taken the basic Microtek technology and made a scanner that looks as good as it scans. You can have form and function, and it is sad that Polaroid will not be proving that in the future. Simon -- -- 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: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glass carrier availabile
Trevor Not sure of why the firmware needs to be upgraded, perhaps is is for 6X18 capability. That said, 6X24 would be nice as it is a four frame holder. Simon - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glass carrier availabile It will require a firmware upgrade which will be available on the Polaroid web-site. What's the firmware upgrade for. If the new holder is the same as the previous one, except for the glass, I don't see the need for the upgrade - or is this something to do with the rumoured 6x18 single pass facility, which presumably will also require Insight to be upgraded as well. Trevor Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: problem with ss120
On 25/5/02 5:54 am, mike rott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just bought a used ss120. Checking it out, I found that while the 35mm slide and film strip holders work, the 120 holder does not. It gets pulled into the scanner only a short ways before getting stuck. The scanner sounds like it is trying to pull the holder in but can not. After a few seconds it rejects the holder. Are there any suggestions on what I can try before returning it or sending it off for repairs. Also, when inserting the holders initially, how much resistance should be expected? thanks, Mike Mike The resistance is quite strong when pushing the holders in and sometimes feels like you are about to do some damage. The 120 holder should travel in just like the others so I don't understand why is doesn't. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal
Art Thanks. I think the Mac uses a different naming convention as I cannot find any .bf files. Simon Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi Simon, On the PC, I have placed the file in: PhotoshopX\Plug-Ins\filters X = version number On the PC version, the .8bf is a filter extension name the .8be is an export module extension name the .8bi is an import module extension name the .8ba is a TWAIN interfacing file Art Simon Lamb wrote: Art What Photoshop folder does the .b? file go into? Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal
Hey Art, if you are out there, did you test a Mac version? Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] no subject
Is this list an advertising forum for Megapixels? It is good that contribution can be made regarding comparisons between the various scanners available, but blatant advertising including pricing, in most cases not even answering a question, is not what I thought this list was about. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: new 4x5 Nikon scanner?
4x5 eh? That should bend like a banana in the Nikon holders then! Dave King wrote: I heard a tantalizing rumor today that Nikon is preparing a scanner similar to the LS-8000 that will scan up to 4x5 at a price point similar to the 8000. Hope it's true! Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
I don't understand what you mean by 'limitation'. The same image scanned on two scanners of different specifications look identical. USM was off in both cases and there was no other image manipulation being done. Given that the image is the same one then any limitation of the kit, such as film flatness would apply to both scanners, although the Flextight is probably keeping the film flatter than the SS120 when scanning it. There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA and Zeiss 180 Sonnar. Tell mw what is a more valid test than using the exact same image in both scanners and I will give it a try. Simon on 9/5/02 11:10 pm, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is possible that the limitation is your kit (I think that's how they say it in the UK)... lens, camera, film flatness, etc. I have been told that the Flexlight adds USM to scans in default mode, and needs to have it removed to see the true scan result. Art Simon Lamb wrote: I still ask the question, does the quality of the scanner hardware also have any significant effect, such as light path, lens, CCD, electronic suppression etc. This question I raise as a result of comparing Flextight Photo scans with SS120 and Multi Pro, where I cannot see any difference in detail even under extreme enlargement in Photoshop and careful examination. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions
Someone else has confirmed that the emulsion is up in the Flex. It does look like the light source is in the bottom so your guidance was indeed correct. Thanks. Simon On 27/4/02 8:53 pm, Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is inserted in the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual states that the film should be loaded emulsion side down. Hi Simon, At least with the Leafscan 45, you DO load the film into the holder emulsion side down, AND the holder is placed in the scanner upside down, therefore emulsion side up...so for the Leaf, what you say makes perfect sense...except the Leaf has the CCD on the top, and the light source is on the bottom. I am guessing with the Imacon, the light source is on the top, and the CCD on the bottom? Either way, the emulsion faces the CCD, just like in an enlarger, the emulsion faces the paper... Check to see if the holder goes in upside down, which would make both statements you said correct. Austin BW images at http://www.monochromeimage.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions
I have been given a Flextight Photo to use for the weekend and I have a question for any users out there. The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is inserted in the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual states that the film should be loaded emulsion side down. Can anyone tell me the correct way to load the film. I did find one 35mm Scala slide was consistently out of focus when the emulsion side was down but was in focus as soon as I changed it to be emulsion side up. Funny thing is that just about every other image was in focus all the time I have been doing it emulsion side down. One other thing. Is it possible to do a RAW scan. I want to scan some Delta 100 and send a RAW file into Photoshop so that I can do all the manipulation myself. Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] TIFF file sizes
My mind has gone to mush and I cannot work out the following: I scan a 6X6 frame at 4000ppi and select 48-bit output in Silverfast. I assume the file size will be: (((2.25x4000)x(2.25x4000))x3)/1024 = 237Mb However, I am getting a file size of 406Mb. Where is my calculation wrong? Thanks. Simon - Original Message - From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:28 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions Simon, Once I got Silverfast and Insight into ps7 they work great. I don't think you'll have a problem. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: That is great news that the plug-ins work. Would my Insight 5.5.2 and Silverfast Ai 5.5 work as normal under PS7? I am concerned about the Piezo BW plug-in as well, as I use it for all my bw printing. Simon On 24/4/02 7:38 am, Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb wrote: I wish I could help, I am still waiting for Adobe to send me my PS7 upgrade! I will probably not install it in the short term anyway, as I have my workflow adequately supported with PS6 and I don't want to start having configuration issues upset that flow. I wouldn't have though Adobe would have rewritten the plug-in interface as there was nothing wrong with it., so I would presume that existing plug-ins would work. Do any other plug-ins work? PS6 and PS 7 look similar But as a bonus (among other things) there is a healing tool which clones heaps better. The healing tool will be of benefit to those which do not have ICE - brilliant tool and well worth getting a copy of PS7. Plugins are working the same. I like the new features. Rob -- -- 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] Terminology
When Silverfast says it is outputting a 48-bit RGB file, am I right in presuming this is the same as other scanning software stating they output a 16-bit RGB file? Is Silverfast just multiplying the 16-bits by 3 for the R, G and B channels, and in effect 48-bit is the same as 16-bit? I also assume if the above is correct that sofware stating 24-bit output is the same as stating 8-bit output. Simon - Original Message - From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:28 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions Simon, Once I got Silverfast and Insight into ps7 they work great. I don't think you'll have a problem. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: That is great news that the plug-ins work. Would my Insight 5.5.2 and Silverfast Ai 5.5 work as normal under PS7? I am concerned about the Piezo BW plug-in as well, as I use it for all my bw printing. Simon On 24/4/02 7:38 am, Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb wrote: I wish I could help, I am still waiting for Adobe to send me my PS7 upgrade! I will probably not install it in the short term anyway, as I have my workflow adequately supported with PS6 and I don't want to start having configuration issues upset that flow. I wouldn't have though Adobe would have rewritten the plug-in interface as there was nothing wrong with it., so I would presume that existing plug-ins would work. Do any other plug-ins work? PS6 and PS 7 look similar But as a bonus (among other things) there is a healing tool which clones heaps better. The healing tool will be of benefit to those which do not have ICE - brilliant tool and well worth getting a copy of PS7. Plugins are working the same. I like the new features. Rob -- -- 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: IT8 calibration SS 120
I wont ;-) It all seems fine so far, sharp as a tack and the nicest smooth grain I have so far seen. Between Silverfast, Insight and Vuescan I think I have all the film bases covered. Simon Simon On 20/4/02 11:22 pm, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A big advantage to the SS120 -- depth of focus!! If it doesn't have to be perfectly flat, don't fix it if it ain't broke:) Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:54 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120 Chris How do you find the film flatness in the MF holder? It does not look flat to me although the images seem to be in focus. I seem to try a few times to get a strip to lay flat. Any tips? It is also impossible to scan every frame on a four frame strip. I like the 120 although the film flatness of the MF is an issue. Simon On 20/4/02 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? It does. Or is supposed to; my first SS120 didn't have one (the machine was returned due to other reasons) and second also didn't. So both times I had to call the retailer - who got Polaroid to send one out. The first slide they sent looked liked it had been dragged across a floor under someone's foot - but both the retailer and Polaroid sorted everything out. Took a few days - so the moral of all this? Check the box/contents before driving the 3 hour journey home. Craig Auckland | Photographer Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120
Jim I am just being paranoid about flatness. The scans are tack sharp. I will definitely look into the glass carrier though. Here is a suggestion for anyone from Lasersoft who may be listening. Can we have a 6X24 option so that we can scan a whole four image strip please? Insight has it and it means I can actually scan all frames on a four frame strip of 6X6. Simon On 21/4/02 1:08 am, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon, I have not noticed a flatness problem with the SS 120 MF carrier. According to Polaroid, however, they will have a glass carrier available within about a month. I am having an indexing problem, when using VueScan, with MF carrier. I have devised some work-arounds but it's still a hassle. All the carriers work well with Insight and SilverFast. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: Chris How do you find the film flatness in the MF holder? It does not look flat to me although the images seem to be in focus. I seem to try a few times to get a strip to lay flat. Any tips? It is also impossible to scan every frame on a four frame strip. I like the 120 although the film flatness of the MF is an issue. Simon On 20/4/02 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? It does. Or is supposed to; my first SS120 didn't have one (the machine was returned due to other reasons) and second also didn't. So both times I had to call the retailer - who got Polaroid to send one out. The first slide they sent looked liked it had been dragged across a floor under someone's foot - but both the retailer and Polaroid sorted everything out. Took a few days - so the moral of all this? Check the box/contents before driving the 3 hour journey home. Craig Auckland | Photographer Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] IT8 calibration SS 120
Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? If not, how do I get it? Is there an upgrade available in the UK to get the slide and enable calibration in the software? Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem
That's a good idea and one I should probably have thought of. I think my brain is turning to mush comparing all these scanners etc. ;-) I will check to see if there is a range of values between 210 and 255. I will try and use the built-in ColorSync calibration on the Mac to get a better image but the dealer is a bit touchy about doing things to his monitor (although he should thank me if the calibration is wrong). Thanks for the advice. Simon - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:32 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:51:20 +0100 Simon Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: When I scanned the image I found that all pixels from about 210 to 255 were showing as black and I could not get any detail to show, even though I know it is there from a scan done on a Sprintscan 120. The histogram shows that the detail should have been there. The fact that there are pixels of values 210-255 says there is a range of luminosities, and if you can't actually see them, to me it suggests a problem with monitor calibration on the system. But check : what happens if you run the PS eyedropper over the pixels which look black, do the luminosity values change? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons -- -- 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: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120 (comments verywelcome please)
I did not try Silverfast, although Vuescan did produce some better results. I take your point about the Flextight, although I always get slides in strips and mount them myself when I have selected the keepers. There is a strip Flex holder that allows up to four to be scanned at once, you need to turn the strip around to do the last two frames of a six frame strip. There is also a three frame 6X6 holder (actually it is a 6X18 holder). Obviously scanning a back catalog of mounted slides would be a headache. I will try scanning the Portra as a RAW file and see if that makes a difference. To be honest, it amazes me that a £30 piece of software such as Vuescan can produce a scan in TIFF format that is vastly superior to Insight. I guess Insight just got the profile wrong, but as I said, Vuescan produces superior scans on Provia, Scala and Delta. As part of this workflow I am looking to minimise the Photoshop manipulation time required, and Insight doesn't look like it will allow that. I will download the Silverfast demo and try that too. I do not want to open the Silverfast Ai supplied with the scanner in case they will not take it back should I return it. Thanks for your reply. Simon On 14/4/02 10:07 am, Lloyd O'Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight to Silverfast for routine scans, although we primarily scan chromes. The only negs I've done on his machine are circa 1980 Kodacolor and VPS 645's. In that case, I did raw scans there and did the processing here with Silverfast HDR or Photoshop. Results were very good. Have you tried Silverfast? If/when I can afford it, I might go for a Flextight Photo as well. They are considered a cut above, and priced accordingly. The only caveats I have with that scanner are I believe you have to unmount 35mm slides and cut negs individually or into very short strips. From a film handling and storing viewpoint for me, that would be a headache. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Simon Lamb Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 2:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120 (comments verywelcome please) I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be welcome. I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results. The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS. As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100 and Delta 400 I gave up. The scans where very dark, the black point stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end had been pushed up against a wall. So, I moved on to using Vuescan. The Provia scanned well although the colour accuracy was not too good. My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as detailed. The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail. The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights. The Porta 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling all over the scan. I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has difficulty with the Portra emulsion. A shame, since my LS30 scans it very well. So where am I now. Well, the SS 120 can obviously produce detailed scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them, especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work. I am not really happy about relying on third party software because should Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be difficult to get the results I need. The carriers are fiddly. In many cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier slightly undone. Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted, and some were just too far out to be workable. I think I will return the SS 120
[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120(comments verywelcome please)
OK, here is where I have got to. I downloaded the 5.5.2 version of Silverfast and compared results using that and Insight. I have now managed to get some great scans, mostly using SF. I have got some great Delta 100, Scala, Provia and E100VS scanned images and I am very pleased with the results. I also upgraded to the latest firmware version, since the carrier got stuck in the scanner using the preview all frames option in SF. However, whatever I use, Portra 160VC 6X6 is not good at all. I have scanned this on my LS30 and it looks great. I tried it with SF and Insight and had to work at it but eventually got the image looking reasonable. However, the SF and Insight images are covered in white specks. It is not dust, there is too much over the entire image area. It is not noise either, just white specks all over the place. Anyone else successfully scanned Portra 160VC using the SS 120? As a direct comparison to the Flextight Photo, I scanned one E100VS image on the Flextight and it did not need any correction for colour etc, just a bit of sharpening. It took me about ten minutes to get the SS 120 scan using Silverfast to the same degree of colour, contrast etc. accuracy. So what I gain in scan speed I am losing on the manipulation. However, I guess either scanner takes the same net time to accomplish the task, I just have to think less with the Flextight. So I think I may keep the SS 120. OK, so I may have to do some spotting etc. as it does not have ICE, but I genuinely think it needs less than the same image scanned on my LS30. I scanned one image with a great big fingerprint on it and it did not show on the scanned image, which was sharp as a tack. I know my LS30 would have picked it up in the scan. I do have one big issue with the medium format carrier. I use 6X6 and have many strips with four frames on a strip. In that configuration, it is impossible to scan slide 2 or 3 without cutting the strip as the second frame in from the end never lines up correctly in the green marks. This will be a pain and I do not want to cut the strips. So, two questions: 1. Will the carrier be redesigned to allow scanning of four 6X6 images without cutting etc? 2. Will there be a glass carrier for 6X6 as sometimes the film does not look completely flat in the supplied carrier. Well, that's it for now. I am going to take a couple of images I produced this afternoon into the dealer and see if the Flextight can get to the same stage in less time. But, in the end, the SS 120 is 40% of the price of the Flextight Photo, and that is a big saving, especially when the difference in images is hard to distinguish. Thanks to Art and everyone else for helping me and offering advice. Just the two questions above to go ;-) Simon On 14/4/02 11:38 am, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Simon, I am pleased you have brought these issues into the public list because there are people here who have more experience with Insight than I, especially in terms of how it functions with the SS120. Further, I had another thought. It is possible that there are aspects of the software that work better in the PC environment than the Mac. Just to make it clear, to avoid any flame war, I am not implying that the PC is a better platform for scanning, or color management, or whatever. What I am suggesting is that perhaps some aspect of the Mac OS causes differing results with Insight, and that either there are adjustments that can be made within the Mac operating system or Insight, which I would not be aware of, which can remedy some of the problems you are experiencing. Therefore, the reported experiences which seem so divergent, might be as a result of different platforms or OS. Someone who is running an SS120 with Insight on a Mac might be able to provide you with some guidance which I am unable to if that is the case, since all my experience with Insight has been under the PC Windows OS platform. Art Simon Lamb wrote: I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be welcome. I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results. The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS. As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100 and Delta 400 I gave
[filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN:NikonLS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
Dave I did not respond to this. Why do you consider the Nikon to be 'considerably' better than the SS 120? Simon On 13/4/02 6:28 pm, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Simon, No I'm not. I had just purchased one the day before David Soderman posted his grain color neg comparisons between the Minolta and Nikon. While I feel the Polaroid is better than the Minolta with the color neg grain problem, I began to wonder if the Nikon was better still. Then I realized many of my preconceived ideas about the Nikon's drawbacks were either not true (using ICE with Kodachrome for example), or there are workarounds. You may not have seen my first post in this thread where I said I was seriously considering the switch before the return period on the SS120 ran out. The Polaroid SS120 is a great scanner, but to be perfectly honest and FWIW, after having my hands on both, I feel the Nikon is considerably better. Cheers, Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 5:03 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: NikonLS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Are you no longer using the SS 120? Simon On 13/4/02 8:34 am, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took shipment on an LS-8000 today. As you say Anthony, Nikonscan 3.1.2 returns an excellent result at default settings, and curves etc are very responsive and useful. 8 bit workflow here I come. The scanner mechanism makes reassuring sounds in operation, and seems very solid. I tested a recent E-6 chrome, a recent color neg, and an ancient, terribly faded and surface damaged E-6 chrome with ICE and ROC. The scans from the new film were near perfect with much less effort than I'm accustomed to, and the restoration of the old chrome was, yes, amazing. I'm impressed. Dave - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 4:34 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Even the early versions I used always produced excellent scans. The current version with an LS-8000ED produces scans that are _almost_ perfect, and require virtually no preparation at all ... and it does that without any special tweaking of the parameters (I'm pretty much using the defaults at the moment). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120 (comments verywelcome please)
In the UK the Flextight is £4,700 compared to £2,100 for the SS 120. Quite a difference still. The LS8000 is £2,700, so a lot nearer. But is it £600 better? Simon On 14/4/02 5:28 pm, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with your current observations except I find Insight to reproduce any color transparency I have tried pretty well. Also, the 35mm strip holder has sprocket hole tabs movable by the film position slider, enabling the film to be positioned side to side with little effort. After closing the top piece you have to gently bracket the film position slider until the tabs fall into the sprocket holes. Perhaps you've already done this and still find it fiddly, but I was satisfied with this mechanism. The price reduction of the Flextight Photo certainly makes it viable, and you may want to consider the Nikon LS-8000 as well. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be welcome. I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results. The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS. As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100 and Delta 400 I gave up. The scans where very dark, the black point stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end had been pushed up against a wall. So, I moved on to using Vuescan. The Provia scanned well although the colour accuracy was not too good. My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as detailed. The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail. The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights. The Porta 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling all over the scan. I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has difficulty with the Portra emulsion. A shame, since my LS30 scans it very well. So where am I now. Well, the SS 120 can obviously produce detailed scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them, especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work. I am not really happy about relying on third party software because should Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be difficult to get the results I need. The carriers are fiddly. In many cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier slightly undone. Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted, and some were just too far out to be workable. I think I will return the SS 120 and try the Flextight Photo. I did find when comparing it side by side with the SS 120 in the store that the Photo just about always reproduced the image as near as possible to the original colour, contrast etc. The built in film profiles seemed to be accurate. It may take twice as long to scan, but I may save that additional time not having to do so much in Photoshop. Your comments on my findings would be welcomed. I know a lot of people use the SS 120, so either I am doing something wrong or they just put the effort in to correct images post scanning. I was using Insight 5.5.1. Regards. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: NikonLS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
Are you no longer using the SS 120? Simon On 13/4/02 8:34 am, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took shipment on an LS-8000 today. As you say Anthony, Nikonscan 3.1.2 returns an excellent result at default settings, and curves etc are very responsive and useful. 8 bit workflow here I come. The scanner mechanism makes reassuring sounds in operation, and seems very solid. I tested a recent E-6 chrome, a recent color neg, and an ancient, terribly faded and surface damaged E-6 chrome with ICE and ROC. The scans from the new film were near perfect with much less effort than I'm accustomed to, and the restoration of the old chrome was, yes, amazing. I'm impressed. Dave - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 4:34 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Even the early versions I used always produced excellent scans. The current version with an LS-8000ED produces scans that are _almost_ perfect, and require virtually no preparation at all ... and it does that without any special tweaking of the parameters (I'm pretty much using the defaults at the moment). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!
I too prefer the post ICE Minolta images. The Minolta seems to be picking up more information from the film as can be seen on the first scans. There are imperfections that the Nikon has not picked up that the Minolta clearly shows. As Art said, the Minolta is scanning at 4800ppi so it may be worth doing the comparison at 4000dpi for both scanners. I does seem as though there is some sharpening happening in the Minolta scanner even though it is set to off in the options. I would prefer the Minolta as it seems to be capturing more detail. I would rather have more detail and be able to do something about it (such as defocusing a bit) rather than not have the detail to work with at all. Simon On 7/4/02 8:27 am, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi David, Very interesting comparisons. What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain)) than the Nikon does. Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20% higher resolution, 4800 versus 4000 dpi, and the original scan does look sharper to me, but at what cost? Honestly, I prefer the Minolta scan post dICE to the Nikon post dICE, and if the grain is still too intense for some would GEM help? My suggestion is try defocusing the Minolta scan and then use dICE and see what it looks like, then compare all of them using USM and see which gives the best final scan. Art david/lisa soderman wrote: Howdy there, Here's an URL that might interest some of you: www.dreamscapesphoto.com/files/p23graintest.htm I came across some 6x6 neg scans that I did before I exchanged my Nikon 8000ED unit. I decided to post those scans in contrast to these from the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. Please try not to get hung up about differences in color, contrast, brightness, etc.. The main objective of the test was to compare GRAIN and ICE. These tests are far from perfect, but they're close enough to get the point across. 6x6 Kodak Portra 160NC color neg film. (rated @ 80 ISO) To me, the Minolta scans look extremely grainy for a moderately slow negative film. Is anyone else out there scanning color negs with the Scan Multi Pro? If so, what kind of results are you getting? Is this typical? Am I over-reacting? Do I have a defective unit? Am I doing something wrong? Would anyone care to trade a Nikon 8000ED for a Minolta Scan Multi Pro? -david soderman- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!
It would be great if David S could submit these comparative images to Minolta and ask if they are generating noise through sharpening in the scanner. I just looked at them under PS and manipulated them using various sharpening methods and you do seem to have a point about this being noise and not grain. I am awaiting my replacement Multi Pro but this comparison is making me have doubts if that much noise will be generated in images. Perhaps David can confirm he was scanning in both scanners at 3200ppi (so that the Minolta would not be using interpolation at 4800), that the negs were scanned reasonably close together in time (since the marks suggest they were not), what the film type was and what the various scanner software settings were. I have definitely found that my negs scanned with much less noise/grain using Vuescan rather than the Minolta software, and that multisampling helped greatly. I hope we can get further down this investigative track before I accept delivery of my replacement Multi Pro. Simon On 7/4/02 1:06 pm, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I too prefer the post ICE Minolta images. Hmm. I prefer the Nikon images, although I'd _love_ to be dead wrong here. They seem much less noisy and sharpen up nicely in photoshop. While the crown images show almost identical detail, the detail in the hair on the woman's forehead seems superior in the Nikon image. (Check it out the post-ICE images at 300% in Photoshop.) The skin tone is smoother and seems to have more real detail. The Minolta seems to be picking up more information from the film as can be seen on the first scans. There seems to be _different_ crud and damage on the negative. I'd think they were scanned at different times in the life of the negative. There are imperfections that the Nikon has not picked up that the Minolta clearly shows. Hmm. I still think that they are looking at different crud and damage. (I could be wrong.) Perhaps David S. would correct me if I'm off the wall here. As Art said, the Minolta is scanning at 4800ppi so it may be worth doing the comparison at 4000dpi for both scanners. My understanding is that the Minolta is a 3200 dpi scanner for 6x6 film. Of course, one might be able to use 4800 dpi to scan part of a 6x6 negative. I don't know if David S. did that for this negative, though. Looking at the post-ICE pics, the Nikon seems to me to be getting more information in the hair and in the skin wrinkles around the eyes. Also, the blood vesels in the whites of her eye look like noise in the Minolta and look like image detail in the Nikon. The smoothness of her skin in the Nikon image is gorgeous, whereas the noise in the Minolta image is (IMO) seriously ugly. I does seem as though there is some sharpening happening in the Minolta scanner even though it is set to off in the options. That may explain the noise. A lot of digital widgets use sharpening that has a threshold of zero, and that excacerbates noise something fierce. I would prefer the Minolta as it seems to be capturing more detail. Hmm. It doesn't look that way to me... I would rather have more detail and be able to do something about it (such as defocusing a bit) rather than not have the detail to work with at all. Agreed! Anyway, thanks to David S. for the pages. (I'm in the midst of _not_ being a happy camper with the Epson 2450, but also thinking it silly to spend $3000 to scan film from a $300 camera (Fuji GS645S)g. However, both of these are worlds better than what I'm getting. Sigh. Anyway, to get back to the original question: I don't think it's grain, I think it's noise. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
To be honest David I had some very clean negs that didn't need any real cleaning so I did not use the IR cleaning under Vuescan. I have heard people report varying amounts of success with it though. ICE is, as you say, impressive. The major plus for me using Vuescan with multisampling was the reduction in the pepper grain apparent when scanning Fuji Provia film. Someone on another forum has had a response from Fuji following the submission of some scans and they accept that the Multi Pro is picking up emulsion flaws and that they will investigate the cause of the pepper grain being on the emulsion. Now where is David S. He got me wondering if I am choosing the best scanner now and he has gone silent on us ;-) Simon On 7/4/02 3:36 pm, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have definitely found that my negs scanned with much less noise/grain using Vuescan rather than the Minolta software, and that multisampling helped greatly. How well did you fin IR cleaning in Vuescan to work with the Minolta? (I found David S's ICE examples incredibly impressive. ICE is definately an amazing trick.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!
I must say the if you look at the images scanned using the Multi Pro in the Imaging Resources review, they look superb. Also, there is a scan of a black train done using the LS 8000 and the Multi Pro for side by side comparison. The Minolta looks by far the better scan, and if you put them both into Photoshop and sharpen them to the same degree, the Multi Pro image sharpens the best of the two. The LS 8000 also show flare in the scan that is not present in the Multi Pro scan. This seems totally at odds with the findings that were posted earlier. Simon On 7/4/02 8:56 pm, M. Denis Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would find these observations more useful if the observers would include mention of ownership of either unit under discussion. Not to imply the possibility of bias, of course.;=) M. Denis Hill Minolta Multi Pro owner -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Moreno Polloni Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs. Minolta ScanMulti Pro! What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain)) than the Nikon does. Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20% higher resolution, 4800 versus 4000 dpi, and the original scan does look sharper to me, but at what cost? Honestly, I prefer the Minolta scan post dICE to the Nikon post dICE, and if the grain is still too intense for some would GEM help? You may want to have another look at the samples. The Nikon scans are much smoother and show more detail. The Nikon scan clearly shows the texture of the skin and fine strands of hair that are not evident in the Minolta scan. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
On 18/3/02 6:28 am, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb wrote: I think this is a faulty unit and I am not sure, if this is the quality from Minolta, that I want to swap for another unit. I had a Coolscan LS30 for four years and never had a problem at all. Well, thanks for all your help Denis. I think I will give up now and decide whether to spring for the LS8000 or try another Scan Multi Pro. Simon, I don't know how long you have been reading this list, but if it has been for any length of time the one thing you should probably have gathered is that pretty much every manufacturer has had some level of either design errors or quality control problems with their film scanners. The big questions, therefore, after the actual scanning quality are, did the manufacturer acknowledge the problems (hardware, firmware, software, or any combo thereof), or advocate for you to have the problems corrected, how common were the problems, how long did it take to correct them, did they learn from their mistakes on newer versions, etc. If you look at the archives of this list and histories of the product lines, you will discover some patterns. Pay attention to people who have returned or exchanged their scanners either for the same model or another and how the situations have resolved. There aren't all that many companies producing medium format film scanners. Do some more research before making a final decision. Make sure you aren't jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. Art I presume you are referring to moving to the LS8000 which may well have the same, if not more and worse, problems. Am I correct in that assumption? I think I may try the Minolta one more time anyway but your advice would be welcomed. Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
On 17/3/02 7:10 am, M. Denis Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The preferences are Auto Expose for Slides, Autofocus at Scan and use monitor colour space. I've been using Auto Focus in prescan, then I check and do final focus with the manual focus tool. I keep Autofocus at Scan turned off. You might try this to see if your prescan looks in focus. If that fails, try manual focus for some prescans, but bracket focus out toward the extremes. That might reveal something broken. By manually setting the focus in different positions, you'll see if focus changes. It's possible that the depth-of-field is sufficient for 35mm film even with focus not working right, but there is enough difference in the height of the film in the MF carrier to throw it out of focus. Why don't you try my manual focus experiment with a slide and 35mm strip, as well? It may reveal something. BTW, the autofocus uses the center of the frame. If you have low contrast material in that area, the scanner may fail to see any change in contrast as it tries to focus. Have you tried both the glassless and glass insert in the MF carrier? I wonder if there is a problem with the carrier or insert. I have successfully scanned 35mm Provia slides, Scala slides and Delta 100 film (although the quality of the black and white negative scan was not very good, it looked grainy and the Provia was too red - any tips here?). You may have no choice but to use VueScan to solve the red problem ... until Minolta attacks the blue cast I mentioned and your red problem. BTW, I tried some Kodachrome 25 scans using the Minolta software. Ghastly! I did find this in the readme file: Color Reproduction of Negative Film When using 35mm and medium format films, make sure that the film is aligned correctly with the film holder frame and the film masks, respectively. This is necessary to ensure that the AE (Automatic Exposure) can be performed correctly. Misaligned film may produce unexpected color casts in the scanned image. I am now trying to scan 6X6 Delta 100 negatives and Kodak Portra 400NC and 160VC negatives. I've scanned Portra 24x65mm in the MF holder with no focus problem. I had no color problem with it in VueScan. There are very few instructions with the scanner. I am placing all negs in the carrier with the image right side up (or the matt side at the bottom. I assume this is correct but shouldn't affect focussing anyway. I agree that the manual is skimpy. The online help description of manual focus is a study in circular logic! If I can find time to really attack the beast, I may try writing a book. I think it has the potential to be a real winner once it has been doped out. Emulsion down is what the manual indicates (under instructions for scanning slides), so you're on the right track in that respect. I hope you can help as this is spoiling my view of the scanner. What is worrying me is that Vuescan is having the same problems - 35mm is fine, medium format is out of focus. Have you contacted Minolta support about this? I'm running the 1.0.1 version of Minolta software, but it seems unlikely to be the problem since VueScan is also unable to focus. Denis Thanks again. I will try using manual focus although if I have to do that for MF film I may just return the scanner as it should not be necessary on such an expensive piece of equipment. I do get the problem with the glassless and glass carriers. I have found that Minolta on their web site for the 1.0.2 release state that they have fixed a focus problem. I wonder if they have just made the problem worse! I will try some more experimentation today and let you know how I get on (if that is OK). Thank heaven for Vuescan, although the fact that Vuescan cannot focus either suggests a scanner problem to me. Thanks again. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
On 17/3/02 7:10 am, M. Denis Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The preferences are Auto Expose for Slides, Autofocus at Scan and use monitor colour space. I've been using Auto Focus in prescan, then I check and do final focus with the manual focus tool. I keep Autofocus at Scan turned off. You might try this to see if your prescan looks in focus. If that fails, try manual focus for some prescans, but bracket focus out toward the extremes. That might reveal something broken. By manually setting the focus in different positions, you'll see if focus changes. It's possible that the depth-of-field is sufficient for 35mm film even with focus not working right, but there is enough difference in the height of the film in the MF carrier to throw it out of focus. Why don't you try my manual focus experiment with a slide and 35mm strip, as well? It may reveal something. BTW, the autofocus uses the center of the frame. If you have low contrast material in that area, the scanner may fail to see any change in contrast as it tries to focus. Have you tried both the glassless and glass insert in the MF carrier? I wonder if there is a problem with the carrier or insert. I have successfully scanned 35mm Provia slides, Scala slides and Delta 100 film (although the quality of the black and white negative scan was not very good, it looked grainy and the Provia was too red - any tips here?). You may have no choice but to use VueScan to solve the red problem ... until Minolta attacks the blue cast I mentioned and your red problem. BTW, I tried some Kodachrome 25 scans using the Minolta software. Ghastly! I did find this in the readme file: Color Reproduction of Negative Film When using 35mm and medium format films, make sure that the film is aligned correctly with the film holder frame and the film masks, respectively. This is necessary to ensure that the AE (Automatic Exposure) can be performed correctly. Misaligned film may produce unexpected color casts in the scanned image. I am now trying to scan 6X6 Delta 100 negatives and Kodak Portra 400NC and 160VC negatives. I've scanned Portra 24x65mm in the MF holder with no focus problem. I had no color problem with it in VueScan. There are very few instructions with the scanner. I am placing all negs in the carrier with the image right side up (or the matt side at the bottom. I assume this is correct but shouldn't affect focussing anyway. I agree that the manual is skimpy. The online help description of manual focus is a study in circular logic! If I can find time to really attack the beast, I may try writing a book. I think it has the potential to be a real winner once it has been doped out. Emulsion down is what the manual indicates (under instructions for scanning slides), so you're on the right track in that respect. I hope you can help as this is spoiling my view of the scanner. What is worrying me is that Vuescan is having the same problems - 35mm is fine, medium format is out of focus. Have you contacted Minolta support about this? I'm running the 1.0.1 version of Minolta software, but it seems unlikely to be the problem since VueScan is also unable to focus. Denis I have tried manual focus and the previews and scans are still out of focus. I hope I am not doing something stupid here. I put the 6X6 neg into the glassless holder with the bars adjusted to the 6X6 size. I then clip the holder into the carrier and insert the carrier into the scanner. Neither Vuescan nor the Minolta software can focus on the medium format film, but both can focus fine on 35mm negs and slides. If I am not doing anything stupid in mounting the film then I guess the scanner will need to be returned. Given the cost, and the poor quality if it is a scanner fault, I may try the LS8000 instead, even though with a glass carrier it would be about 50% more expensive than the Minolta. I really want the Minolta to work and this is very frustrating. Thanks Denis, and any further ideas would be gratefully received. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
On 17/3/02 1:09 pm, M. Denis Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon, I don't think you're doing anything wrong, though I don't find manual focusing onerous. I certainly would discuss the problem with Minolta support. They should be able to isolate it and, if necessary, swap your scanner for one without the problem. It does not seem to be one of those incurable issues, rather a faulty unit that slipped through QC. I've closely monitored all discussions on the Multi Pro for several months and have not heard of this before. In contrast, it is pretty well documented that the LS8000 has a depth-of-field issue with curled film. That's one reason I cancelled after waiting seven months for one and went with the Minolta (and I've used Nikon cameras and lenses for 33 years). I've done fewer than 20 scans on my Multi Pro, but I think it's a keeper. Denis OK, I found the manual on the CD. I decided to start right from scratch so I set the optics back to the locked position (Ctl+shift+L), put in the screw, shutdown and restarted as if installing for the first time. I have now got the scanner to focus on 6X6 film but I have another problem. The image is distorted. The sides have been cropped and the rest of the image has stretched to fill the dimension of the neg. So from one problem to another. To try and resolve that problem I reset everything again and locked the optics. When I restarted the image scanned with no distortion but now the focus is wrong again. I think this is a faulty unit and I am not sure, if this is the quality from Minolta, that I want to swap for another unit. I had a Coolscan LS30 for four years and never had a problem at all. Well, thanks for all your help Denis. I think I will give up now and decide whether to spring for the LS8000 or try another Scan Multi Pro. Regards. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
Hi I have taken the plunge and gone for the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. However, I have a problem. Using the Minolta scan software or Vuescan I get excellent 35mm scans with excellent focus. However, when I try to scan 6X6 medium format film the focus is always completely wrong, with both Vuescan and the Minolta software. I have version 7.5.10 of Vuescan and 1.0.2 of the Minolta software (which is the latest release). I am running on a Mac G4. Has anyone else had this problem or know what the resolution is? Also, does anyone else find that the Scan Multi Pro produces very red scans that have to be adjusted when using the Minolta software. This problem does not exist with Vuescan (excellent as always Ed, if you're listening). Thanks for any help. Simon BW images at http://www.monochromeimage.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro
On 17/3/02 4:23 am, M. Denis Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice no difference in focus between film formats with mine using Minolta software (1.0). If you'll document the steps and settings you are using, I'll try to reproduce your problem on my Multi Pro with Minolta and VueScan. I am using a PC, however. Please note: How are your Minolta Scan preferences set: Auto Expose for Slides? Auto Focus at Scan? What other settings are you using for your scans? In Prescan, are you using auto focus and/or adjust focus manually? If either or both, what area and image characteristics are you targeting (i.e., edge or center of frame, detailed subject vs. low contrast)? What kind of film in 35mm and medium-format? What is the manifestation of wrong medium-format focus? Regarding your red scans, there is a known problem with a blue cast under a specific set of conditions: scanning 24x65mm color negs in the multi-format holder. Like your red cast, this occurs in Minolta Scan but not in VueScan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Simon Lamb Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Focus problem on Minolta Scan Multi Pro Hi I have taken the plunge and gone for the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. However, I have a problem. Using the Minolta scan software or Vuescan I get excellent 35mm scans with excellent focus. However, when I try to scan 6X6 medium format film the focus is always completely wrong, with both Vuescan and the Minolta software. I have version 7.5.10 of Vuescan and 1.0.2 of the Minolta software (which is the latest release). I am running on a Mac G4. Has anyone else had this problem or know what the resolution is? Also, does anyone else find that the Scan Multi Pro produces very red scans that have to be adjusted when using the Minolta software. This problem does not exist with Vuescan (excellent as always Ed, if you're listening). Denis The preferences are Auto Expose for Slides, Autofocus at Scan and use monitor colour space. Other than that I have not changed any other settings. In the prescan I am letting the software do whatever it is supposed to do. I have also tried selecting a focus area for the scanner to autofocus on and it says it is focussing and does another prescan, but you can tell from the prescan that the image is out of focus. When I do the scan and open in Photoshop it is blurred and out of focus. I have tried setting the AF point to the edge as well as the centre of frame. I have successfully scanned 35mm Provia slides, Scala slides and Delta 100 film (although the quality of the black and white negative scan was not very good, it looked grainy and the Provia was too red - any tips here?). I am now trying to scan 6X6 Delta 100 negatives and Kodak Portra 400NC and 160VC negatives. There are very few instructions with the scanner. I am placing all negs in the carrier with the image right side up (or the matt side at the bottom. I assume this is correct but shouldn't affect focussing anyway. I hope you can help as this is spoiling my view of the scanner. What is worrying me is that Vuescan is having the same problems - 35mm is fine, medium format is out of focus. Thanks Denis. Simon BW images at http://www.monochromeimage.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Moreno Polloni wrote: Now, given the recent price reductions, for another £1,000 more than the competition, I can't see any reason to consider any other scanner over the Flextight. I am always open to contrary views though, and if anyone can provide good reasons not to go the Flextight route (barring saving the money) then I would take all advice on board. With the current price reductions, the Flextight sounds pretty competitive. When I was doing my comparisons, the Flextight II was 4x the price of the Nikon/Polaroid scanners. The Flextight II was also slow, noisy in the shadows, and the PC software wasn't very good. The Photo seems to be a better all around scanner, and if I was in your position, given the new pricing, I'd certainly give it a serious look. It's not the scanner for everyone though. If you have a lot of 35mm slides, you'll need to remove them from their mounts. This may or may not be acceptable to you, if your scanning volume is high. Of course, you could always get your slide film returned unmounted and that would take care of the problem. Another potential issue is scanning long 120 negs (panoramas). I had difficulty with the film buckling towards the end of the scan. Film base varies quite a bit between type and brand, so this is another issue that may or may not be a problem for you. Good points you raise. I always get my 35mm slides unmounted and I mount the ones that I wish to file, so that is not problem. The panoramas would not be a problem either as I don't really do any. As for film base, there are about fifty profiles for various film types in the scanning software. How good they all are remains ot be seen. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Dave King wrote: SNIP: I will disagree with your assessment of the LS-30 and Vuescan after owning that scanner for a few years. With color negs particularly Vuescan blows away what you can get with concurrent versions of NikonScan in terms of tone scale accuracy (in the shadows particularly), and in the absence of NikonScan's famous jaggies. In terms of real world results, particularly if looking at resulting prints, I would put the lowly LS-30 up against better scanners with inferior software if one stays within the resolution limits imposed by the LS-30, and expect better results. More than once I've heard knowledgeable folks say the software is more important than the scanner (within reasonable limits). Dave I have had the LS30 for years too and have used Vuescan since it was first developed. What I meant was that I do not see any future version of Vuescan that will enable me to get more out of my LS30 than Vuescan does today. I just worded it badly ;-) Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
That is not so Dave. Edge to edge sharpness is not a software issue, it is a film flatness issue in the scaner, and an area where the curving of the film in the Flextight helps greatly. Shadow detail, and particularly noise in teh shadow detail, is not a software issue, it is an issue of how the scanning light source and hardware create the noise and accentuate grain. The depth of detail extracted from the shadow areas is not a software issue (altough software can help) but also to do with the Dmax of the scanner. Colour and clarity can also be assisted using Vuwscan, but the scanner has to be able to record them reasonably accurately in the first place. I am confident that Vuescan will not help to resolve some of these issue, particularly edge to edge sharpness. I use Vuescan all the time and will try and re-do my comparison using it with the SS120 and MSMP. Simon Dave King wrpte: When you're scanning color negs software is the determining factor in all the parameters you mention except detail resolution. I don't know how much the price of the Flextight has fallen, but those using the other scanners you mention can take heart in the fact that Vuescan exists. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK David Lewiston wrote: Simon To answer my own question about 'how much scanner?'... Just did another websearch on Imacon. At the Luminous Landscape site I found the following entry for Oct 24, 2001: At the beginning of this month Imacon announced that they had reduced the price of the Imacon Flextight Photo to US$6,495 from its original price of $9,995. I have just been informed that Imacon is currently offering a limited-time US$1,500 mail-in rebate which effectively reduces the net cost to the end-user to $4,995. It seems to be the Flextight 1, which does 35mm only at a resolution of 3,200 dpi, about half the resolution of its big brother. David It is indeed the Flextight Photo. I used this in the dealer to scan a 35mm and 6x6 neg on a Sprintscan 120, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and the Flextight Photo. At 3200 dpi and with a Dmax of 4.1 the Flextight blew the others away with far superior scans in detail (shadow and highlight), clarity, colour, edge to edge sharpness etc. etc. I will be getting my one on Monday :-) Simon -- -- 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: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Austin Franklin wrote: I think you have done a good conclusion here. If you go back in the mailing list you found what I have been written about film flatness problems . I did last summer a test with my own 3 scanners LS2000. LS4000 and Polaroid 35+ against Imacon Photo. None of them could match the Imacon scanner in sharpness and Dmax. How do you know that any of the scanners weren't doing some sharpening on their own? I'm asking if you confirmed that they weren't... I would specifically suspect the Imacon did some sharpening...I don't know about the others. Austin All sharpening was off, we double checked it to ensure an even test. We also turned it on to see the difference and, to be honest, the Flextight was as sharp with sharpening turned off as the other two were with it turned on. Turning sharpening on in the Flextight did produce absolutely stunning scans, the best I have seen I think. I have sent an email to Imacon to check that there is no hardware sharpening being done without the being aware of it. Simon Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Dave I accept that the software can assist in pulling more information out of a negative but if the scanner does not have the capability in the hardware to read it then it isn't going to materialise in the output scan file. I doubt that Vuescan will ever get my lowly LS30 to perform better than it does now, and it will never meet the level of the Flextight, SS120, MDSMP or Nikon 8000. I have seen the review of the MDSMP where a scan showed a lot of noise in a particularly dark part of the scan. 16x multisampling erradicated most of it although there was visible banding. Simon Dave King wrote: I didn't say edge to edge sharpness is a software issue, but shadow detail and noise in color negs scans certainly is. That is the part of the neg that is the easiest for the hardware to deal with. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK That is not so Dave. Edge to edge sharpness is not a software issue, it is a film flatness issue in the scaner, and an area where the curving of the film in the Flextight helps greatly. Shadow detail, and particularly noise in teh shadow detail, is not a software issue, it is an issue of how the scanning light source and hardware create the noise and accentuate grain. The depth of detail extracted from the shadow areas is not a software issue (altough software can help) but also to do with the Dmax of the scanner. Colour and clarity can also be assisted using Vuwscan, but the scanner has to be able to record them reasonably accurately in the first place. I am confident that Vuescan will not help to resolve some of these issue, particularly edge to edge sharpness. I use Vuescan all the time and will try and re-do my comparison using it with the SS120 and MSMP. Simon Dave King wrpte: When you're scanning color negs software is the determining factor in all the parameters you mention except detail resolution. I don't know how much the price of the Flextight has fallen, but those using the other scanners you mention can take heart in the fact that Vuescan exists. David Lewiston wrote: Simon To answer my own question about 'how much scanner?'... Just did another websearch on Imacon. At the Luminous Landscape site I found the following entry for Oct 24, 2001: At the beginning of this month Imacon announced that they had reduced the price of the Imacon Flextight Photo to US$6,495 from its original price of $9,995. I have just been informed that Imacon is currently offering a limited-time US$1,500 mail-in rebate which effectively reduces the net cost to the end-user to $4,995. It seems to be the Flextight 1, which does 35mm only at a resolution of 3,200 dpi, about half the resolution of its big brother. David It is indeed the Flextight Photo. I used this in the dealer to scan a 35mm and 6x6 neg on a Sprintscan 120, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and the Flextight Photo. At 3200 dpi and with a Dmax of 4.1 the Flextight blew the others away with far superior scans in detail (shadow and highlight), clarity, colour, edge to edge sharpness etc. etc. I will be getting my one on Monday :-) Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Austin Franklin wrote: Austin All sharpening was off, we double checked it to ensure an even test. We also turned it on to see the difference and, to be honest, the Flextight was as sharp with sharpening turned off as the other two were with it turned on. Turning sharpening on in the Flextight did produce absolutely stunning scans, the best I have seen I think. I have sent an email to Imacon to check that there is no hardware sharpening being done without the being aware of it. Hi Simon, How do you know sharpening was off? See Moreno's post...point is, it's not so easy to know what the hardware is actually doing! Regards, Austin Good point and I saw that post and am waiting for a reply from Imacon. However, even if sharpening is applied (and if it is it is done very well indeed) the quality of the output was what I was concerned with and that was superb. I have read many reviews now on the SS120, Minolta Dimage Multi Pro, Nikon 8000 etc. and the only reviews I have read that do not state any real negatives are the one regarding the Flextight (and the real negative for many is the price). The scanning software is reputedly the best available (barring the obvious benefits that Vuescan brings to other scanners), there is no talk of banding (as can be seen on Nikon and Dimage scans with the three CCD lines (Vuescan resolving this by using only one line as per the Nikon recommended fix for the problem), edge to edge sharpness is as good as it gets without a real drum scanner and the Flextight is generally regarded as a reference scanner. Now, given the recent price reductions, for another £1,000 more than the competition, I can't see any reason to consider any other scanner over the Flextight. I am always open to contrary views though, and if anyone can provide good reasons not to go the Flextight route (barring saving the money) then I would take all advice on board. As you know Austin, I have been wanting to upgrade my scanner for a while and have seriouslky considered the Leaf 45 in the past. However, getting hold of a good one in the UK is nigh on impossible and I can't seem to get satisfactory enough answers from eBay sellers to make me comfortable paying to import one from abroad. I do a lot of black and white and the Leaf, as you have stated, excels at real bw as opposed to averaged out RGB scans. The film profiles in the Flextight software gave me the opportunity to see a Delta 100 scan like I have never seen before emerge from the scanner. As with my other photographic purchases, I want the best quality in all parts of the process, from taking the image through to piezo printing the output. Right now, I believe the Felxtight provides another strong link in that quality chain, without the negatives I consistently read about with others scanners, and at a reasonably comparitive price. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Leaf35 - was - RE: Lawrence's request ;-) - was -RE: Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle
Thanks Austin, I have asked the questions and am awaiting a response. Simon Austin Franklin wrote: Hi Simon, I strongly suggest when getting a Leaf, make sure it's the latest version, with both GPIB and SCSI ports. The early ones were only GPIB. Also, make sure the firmware cartridge is version 4.1, and that it comes with BOTH (if it's a 35) the film holder and slide holder. If you want to use it on a PC, you need a GPIB card, on a Mac, you do not. The software is readily available for both. On the Mac, it's a PS plug-in, and on the PC it's a standalone application. Any other questions, please feel free to ask! Regards, Austin Austin There is a Leaf 35 on eBay. They do work on PC and not just MAC I presume. When you say fixed focus, what does that mean in scanner terms (I use a Nikon LS30 and do not focus as such). Simon - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 February 2002 23:34 Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lawrence's request ;-) - was -RE: Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle Hi Simon, Check eBay... BTW, if you only scan 35mm, the Leaf 35 is a nice option, for what I consider, a very reasonable price...around $500 or less. Only difference is it's fixed focus, only does 35mm and is only 4000SPI. Same electronics as the Leaf 45 with the sensor masked off. Regards, Austin Austin If and when you sell the Leaf, put me on the list for potential purchasers! Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lawrence's request ;-) - was -RE: Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle
Austin There is a Leaf 35 on eBay. They do work on PC and not just MAC I presume. When you say fixed focus, what does that mean in scanner terms (I use a Nikon LS30 and do not focus as such). Simon - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 February 2002 23:34 Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lawrence's request ;-) - was -RE: Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle Hi Simon, Check eBay... BTW, if you only scan 35mm, the Leaf 35 is a nice option, for what I consider, a very reasonable price...around $500 or less. Only difference is it's fixed focus, only does 35mm and is only 4000SPI. Same electronics as the Leaf 45 with the sensor masked off. Regards, Austin Austin If and when you sell the Leaf, put me on the list for potential purchasers! Simon - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 February 2002 17:53 Subject: [filmscanners] Lawrence's request ;-) - was -RE: Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle Peter, Yes, I do have a web site. I also have posted many images over the years that I personally took, developed and scanned. If you, or anyone, is interested, I am happy to give you the URLs for them. Austin I'd love to take a look Austin. Having heard so much about that killer scanner ;-) let's see what it can do! Lawrence Hi Lawrence, The web site is for my current business, which is engineering consulting services: http://www.darkroom.com/ and it has no photographic images on it with direct links, since I'm not in the photography business any more (having been a commercial photographer for near 10 years). But...I am still very active in photography (obviously), so, per your request, I'm more than happy to post some recent images: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg Hasselblad 205FCC/110-2FE @ f2/Tri-X 400/D76 1:1 http://www.darkroom.com/Images/Mv03bCropw.jpg Hasselblad 2003FCW/80-2.8CF/Plus-X/D76 1:1 http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LALR04aw.jpg Contax RTSIII/85-1.4 @ 1.4/Tri-X 400 @ 800/D76 1:1 and last but not least: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/JS01aw.jpg Hasselblad 2003FCW/80-2.8CF @ f2.8/Plus-X 125/D76 1:1 Keep in mind these are 100DPI images on a computer monitor...in JPEG format. FYI, my server is a Unix based server, and IS case sensitive. If you really want to judge the Leaf for it's BW performance, I suggest you get an original, which, I would be more than happy to swap images with (most) anyone who asks. -- -- 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
Re: filmscanners: LS-2000 B/W Negatives
Gaspar I have successfully scanned many BW negatives on my LS30. In view of the fact that this is a lesser spec than the LS2000, you should get satisfactory results with your scanner. What is wrong with your scans? Simon Gaspar wrote: Has anyone find a satisfactory solution to scanning BW negatives using the LS-2000? Is there any hope that this could be made to work?
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
I must admit I have never encountered grain aliasing using Supra on my LS-30. Where does this show up on the scan? Is it in darker or black areas? I am interested as I think Supra is a superb film and I regularly use it and scan it, so it would be useful to know where others are encountering issues. Here is a link to an image scanned on the LS-30 from a Supra 400 negative (the picture of the girl called 'Lillie'): http://www.sclamb.com/contaxn1/makrosonnar/FrameSet.htm I find the transitions between colours, the smooth tones and the accurate flesh tone are the things that I like about Supra. Obviously there are no dark areas, hence my question as to whether the aliasing is in dark or black areas. Simon Maris V. Lidaka, Sr wrote: I have had the same results as John with Kodak Supra 400 on the Nikon LS-30 - grain aliasing. Maris - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll | John | | I have had excellent results scanning Supra 400 on my LS30 using the | NikonScan 3.1 software and Vuescan. Is your reference to grain aliasing | with Supra 400 related to the scanner or your experience with the film? | | Simon | | John Matturri wrote: | | Exposure latitude. More important for street photography and | the like than for many other types of work. 100 films also | are a problem when shooting moving things, especially if you | want good dof. (I do, however, use ProviaF 100 pushed a | stop. | | That said, I've had terrible grain aliasing problems with | Supra 400. |
Re: filmscanners: LS-40 Vuescan
Although this does not specifically answer your question, I normally mount negatives in slide holders which I find keep the film flatter. It of course depends on whether you wish to cut your negative strips. Simon Marc S. Fogel wrote: I use a Nikon Coolscan IV. When I scan color negatives with Vuescan(7.2.4) the frame does not line up. I will get part of two frames in the preview as well as in the scan. I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1. Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL
I had one on order and it is now is stock. Hopefully get some scanning going this weekend. Simon Ian Jackson wrote: Dear All, Further to my mail about the manual being available. Here is the URL: http://www.minoltaeurope.com/pe/digital_photography.html Now who has bought one? regards, Ian
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL
£1830, excluding VAT (£2,150 inc VAT). If it lives up to the spec sheet, a bargain me thinks! Simon Ian Jackson wrote: Care to say how much you paid? Ian - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:46 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL I had one on order and it is now is stock. Hopefully get some scanning going this weekend. Simon Ian Jackson wrote: Dear All, Further to my mail about the manual being available. Here is the URL: http://www.minoltaeurope.com/pe/digital_photography.html Now who has bought one? regards, Ian
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
Bernhard Ess wrote: SNIP: BTW, I have re- studied the sample scans of the Minolta and the Nikon 8000 on imaging- resource, and unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that the Nikon ist the better scanner in almost every respect: Bernhard If you re-studied the article it disagrees with your statement. I quote (with recognition of the article copyright to Imaging-Resource): Both the DSMP and 8000 ED produced scans with very low noise, and in fact were only slightly improved by using the 16x sampling option. It's a very close call, but we felt that the 8000 ED just slightly edged the DSMP in noise performance, but the Dimage held its own, and in fact won out in two areas. First, the Nikon 8000 ED has a special one line scan mode that you need to use on scans requiring extreme tonal adjustments, to prevent banding. The DSMP had no such requirement, and the scans were remarkably clean and uniform in this respect. Second, we were surprised to see that some of what we'd interpreted as lens flare on the film itself may in fact be flare in the scanner optics: Looking around the front truck on the locomotive, there are areas where brightly sunlit earth is juxtaposed to the pitch black of the underside of the locomotive. There's very visible flare in the Super Coolscan's image in these areas, and also in the shadows to the right of the front truck, obscuring details in the rails and ties of the train track. Looking at the same area on the scan from the Dimage Scan Multi Pro, we see much lower flare, and the details in the train track are much more visible. This looks to us like a significant advantage for the DSMP. The Nikon is definitely not the best scanner in almost every respect (better in a few areas, equal in most and worse in a few) and, given the price differential, the DSMP looks like a rerasonable choice. Simon
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL
Ian Jackson wrote: I will use the SCSI until I get my new PC and the use the Firewire for the increased bandwidth. I guess Ian was evaluating the image and that is a fair assessment. However, there are some details in the print that weigh in favour of the DSMP. I believe no scanner can be perfect and ones choice is always made by weighing up how much impact the negatives have and how much they outweigh the positives. I believe I will be happy with the DSMP and I hope to use it with Vuescan, which does not concern itself with image quality to the eye but more with pulling every last detail from the scan, and it is here that the DSMP I believe will outgun the 8000. Photoshop is almost a must with Vuescan but the results can be stunning. Simon Simon, Excellent! Are you going to use the IEEE1394 or SCSI? I note that IEEE1394 is not available with Windows XP Home only the XP professional although I don't know if a separate IEEE1394 /PCI card can be used with XP. I read the review and after also reading the manual this Minolta is for me too. Hoiwever I was surprised to read Bernhard's comment about the Nikon beating the Minolta on every count on the visual results. I wonder if he was comparing the review pictures or the real thing? Ian - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL £1830, excluding VAT (£2,150 inc VAT). If it lives up to the spec sheet, a bargain me thinks! Simon Ian Jackson wrote: Care to say how much you paid? Ian
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
Hi I know what you mean by the images. I find many areas that are so close as to be almost identical. Some are very different, such as the foliage, but we do not know which green is the right green colour - was the foliage lighter or darker than the scanned image. I do agree that the blacks seem deeper on the Nikon but again. I agree that when spending this amount of money it is vital to make the right decision. I also firmly believe that whatever I buy, the next week a bigger and better scanner at a cheaper price will come out and I will want that one instead! Happened when I bought a video player and I bet it happens now. Best. Simon Bernhard Ess wrote: Simon, you are right about their arguments, but they keep telling themselves that the scans should speak for themselves - having read the review I was very positive about the Minolta, but having re- examined the scans in detail I changed my view - did you look at them quietly? What I found is that the bigger - upsampled - resolution of 4800 doesn´t give more detail, but more unsharpness - but the difference in noise is just *very* strong in the dark areas. And there is this strange veil above the Minolta scans - which makes everything come out more clearly and nicer colours fir the Nikon. I repost those deciding links: it was http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSMP/DSMTRAIN6ADJ.HTM for the Minolta and... http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS8K/C8TRAIN9.HTM for the Nikon 8000. Watch exactly at the lower part of the locomotive where it really dark - I opened the pics in photoshop side to side - for me this seems like as if the Nikon is a clear winner here. Don´t misunderstand me here please - I don´t try to make one machine bad and another one good - I have no personal preference to one brand or another - I just try to find out which machine I will spend *so much* money for And those scans seem like the most exact measure I have at hand... - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:56 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW??? Bernhard Ess wrote: SNIP: BTW, I have re- studied the sample scans of the Minolta and the Nikon 8000 on imaging- resource, and unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that the Nikon ist the better scanner in almost every respect: Bernhard If you re-studied the article it disagrees with your statement. I quote (with recognition of the article copyright to Imaging-Resource): SNIP
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL
In the UK, Robert White (www.robertwhite.co.uk) has one left, Dale Photographic (www.dalephotographic.co.uk) has some on order for delivery in two weeks. Simon david soderman: Simon, from where are you purchasing your Scan Multi Pro? I'm sure many others out there are interested also! Thanks. Joyfully, -david soderman- I had one on order and it is now is stock. Hopefully get some scanning going this weekend. Simon
