RE: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Thank you for your reply. Appreciate your help. Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Fernandez Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 22:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote: Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my budget even for the future :-( ). BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED. It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's features. BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to remove grain. The bad thing is that you really need it! Grain isn't too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans. Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain. Price/performance is on the side of Polaroid of course and I read many quite favorable tests and reviews for this unit, but I'm struggle about ICE featuring. ... probably ICE would be quite useful for me, but then resolution/feature trade-off should be made... BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film. BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) BF: yes it's good enough. or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? BF: yes you'll notice a difference. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Thanks Andy, but I would take different approach. I would scan at the best resolution and quality I can given particular hardware I have, print at home using quality inkjets (kind of Epson 1270 or even 2000p) up to A4 or slightly bigger (let's say up to 35x28 cm), or approach professional lab providing them with my scans capable of optical printing of high-quality A3 formats. This way, I probably cannot count of relatively low resolution of home printers... Assuming that hit rate for such big enlargements usually is quite low (at least mine - have probably 4-5 slides out of 24 rolls which would worth blowing up to A3 and proudly hanging on the wall) pricing of pro lab for such kind of work wouldn't be issue. Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Tyson Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 03:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) Yes, if it's an inkjet print, because the printer resolution is less than this (approx 200dpi sent to the printer). But remember you may wish to crop a frame, and still print at A3, so you might need more pixels. OTOH, it depends on what you mean by 'quality A3'. If you mean something against which, after cropping and printing with less than 200ppi, keen amateur photographers will press their noses and loupes and be hypercritical, the answer is no. If you mean something that will impress less critical friends and relations when hung over the fireplace and viewed from several metres away, you can go much bigger than A3 (at least A2) with 2700 ppi and still have satisfied customers. Regards, good luck, and have lots of fun, Alan T - Original Message - From: Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
I newest version of Insight V 5.5, which will be available shortly, will have some additional negative profiles designed to handle broader negative exposures which would not work with the current profiles, David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software I'd also recommend trying Polaroid Insight first, and I agree with David's other comments shown here, as well. If you think you need the power of SilverFast, then make sure you upgrade to version 5.5 if you scan color negatives Version 5.5 gives you something called NegaFix and it's really needed for scanning color negatives. In a message dated 9/30/2001 9:17:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on 9/30/01 9:00 AM PST, JackG wrote: I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. John in OKC- Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. Have fun, David Corwin
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Thanks for the answer. The SS4000 doesn't offer IR based ICE feature, so did you mean *always* using IR cleaning when scanning with your LS30 ? BTW, I'm confused a bit by your claim of dust/scratches being less obvious with higher resolution. My opinion was exactly opposite: more resolution picks up more dust, due to smaller pixels being used to achieve bigger resolution on similar physical area. Am I wrong ? Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 01:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? I've made nice A3 prints on my Epson 1160 using scans at 2700dpi with a Nikon LS30. Scans on a SS4000 look bigger, but I'm not convinced that there's a lot more detail in them. I generally scan with Vuescan, and *always* use Infra-red cleaning. Infra-red cleaning saves hours of spotting. Dust and scratches are less obvious in SS4000 scans, so there's less spotting anyway. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
I've used the SS4000 and LS-4000, and I'd agree that the Polaroid shows less dust than the LS-4000. The common wisdom is that this is due to highly collimated light source in the Nikon scanner - it shows up every last speck, where the gentler light source of the Polaroid doesn't. It's kind of like a condenser enlarger head vs. a diffusion head. The scans are equally detailed from both. Switch on IR cleaning in the Nikon, and the problem goes away, though you do trade off spotting time for longer scan times. I use Vuescan with my LS-4000, and can see no appreciable softening of the image from the operation of cleaning algorithm, so I too use it all the time. Paul -Original Message- From: Alex Z [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software Thanks for the answer. The SS4000 doesn't offer IR based ICE feature, so did you mean *always* using IR cleaning when scanning with your LS30 ? BTW, I'm confused a bit by your claim of dust/scratches being less obvious with higher resolution. My opinion was exactly opposite: more resolution picks up more dust, due to smaller pixels being used to achieve bigger resolution on similar physical area. Am I wrong ? Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 01:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? I've made nice A3 prints on my Epson 1160 using scans at 2700dpi with a Nikon LS30. Scans on a SS4000 look bigger, but I'm not convinced that there's a lot more detail in them. I generally scan with Vuescan, and *always* use Infra-red cleaning. Infra-red cleaning saves hours of spotting. Dust and scratches are less obvious in SS4000 scans, so there's less spotting anyway. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
on 9/30/01 9:00 AM PST, JackG wrote: I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. John in OKC- First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear. If you have trouble, forget it, and go right to using Polacolor. For your first scans, only use well exposed slides. Polacolor is easy to use, and should deliver you good scans right from the get go. Truly, a few clicks and you're there. Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. But please get comfortable with slides first. You'll be happier. Have fun, David Corwin
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
John, I have no experience with the SilverFast software but absolutely LOVE Vuescan for trannies, at least. I'm an experienced scanner but new to the SS4000 myself. I've spent $40 on far less useful things. :) Hamrick software has a full featured demo you can d/l from www.hamrick.com that you can try. Paying for registering the software will get rid of the diagonal lines the demo puts on the output. Good for a test drive before you buy. HTH -- Dave I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. Thanks, John in OKC
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Thanks David
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Download Vuescan for a trial run - it's the full program but inserts a watermark unless and until you decide you like it and buy it. I don't think any of us can tell you what will work best for you - we each have our own ways of working and preferred software. Maris - Original Message - From: JackG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: filmscanners: Best scanner software | Good Morning, | | I realize this may be like asking which is better, a Ford or a Chevrolet. | | I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the | messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or | the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, | but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works | well. | | Thanks, | | John in OKC | | |
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Hi guys and girls. I'm new member (just signed in) starting to get sucked into film scanning world. Though having quite extensive photography experience (an long-term membership in Minolta Mailing List) I'm quite novice in the world of film scanners. Just recently bringing over 800 slides from my last vacation in Europe, I stumbled in the problem if scanning to create slide shows. I started to investigate an offers on the market and specifications (no problem with that - have an engineering background in electronics) so narrowed my choices to 2800 dpi resolution or upper (up to 4000 dpi). Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my budget even for the future :-( ). I realize all of them have buggy software causing troubles sometimes, but fortunately for most of them there are separate independent software available (like SilverFast or VueScan). Price/performance is on the side of Polaroid of course and I read many quite favorable tests and reviews for this unit, but I'm struggle about ICE featuring. Have to admit my slides cannot be considered as sterile, usually gathering some dust and sometimes scratched due to poor handling by labs (even those claimed to be really professional, so that priced... ), so probably ICE would be quite useful for me, but then resolution/feature trade-off should be made... I would be glad to hear hands-on opinions about Polaroid 4000, do you really satisfied with it's performance ? How much tweaking does it demand generally after scanning to achieve quality results suitable for real enlargements and printing (postprocessing) ? Does it have batch scanning capability ? BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? I intend to use it on PC system. Any opinion is welcomed. Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 18:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software John, I have no experience with the SilverFast software but absolutely LOVE Vuescan for trannies, at least. I'm an experienced scanner but new to the SS4000 myself. I've spent $40 on far less useful things. :) Hamrick software has a full featured demo you can d/l from www.hamrick.com that you can try. Paying for registering the software will get rid of the diagonal lines the demo puts on the output. Good for a test drive before you buy. HTH -- Dave I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. Thanks, John in OKC
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
I take it from your comment that Insight does not have provision for IT-8 calibration. Does it at least have provision for using the profile made with Silverfast? What I want in a scanner software is the ability to set endpoints, get essentially the same tone/color balance as the original (profile comes in here), and high bit output. I'm another one who prefers doing final edits on high bit files in PS. Dave King - Original Message - From: David Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear. If you have trouble, forget it, and go right to using Polacolor. For your first scans, only use well exposed slides. Polacolor is easy to use, and should deliver you good scans right from the get go. Truly, a few clicks and you're there. Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. But please get comfortable with slides first. You'll be happier. Have fun, David Corwin
LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote: Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my budget even for the future :-( ). BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED. It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's features. BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to remove grain. The bad thing is that you really need it! Grain isn't too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans. Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain. Price/performance is on the side of Polaroid of course and I read many quite favorable tests and reviews for this unit, but I'm struggle about ICE featuring. ... probably ICE would be quite useful for me, but then resolution/feature trade-off should be made... BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film. BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) BF: yes it's good enough. or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? BF: yes you'll notice a difference. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Polacolor insight includes a profile for the scanner. The profile describes the color characteristics of the scanner, the film (chrome) being scanned is not relevant. David -Original Message- From: Dave King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software I take it from your comment that Insight does not have provision for IT-8 calibration. Does it at least have provision for using the profile made with Silverfast? What I want in a scanner software is the ability to set endpoints, get essentially the same tone/color balance as the original (profile comes in here), and high bit output. I'm another one who prefers doing final edits on high bit files in PS. Dave King - Original Message - From: David Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear. If you have trouble, forget it, and go right to using Polacolor. For your first scans, only use well exposed slides. Polacolor is easy to use, and should deliver you good scans right from the get go. Truly, a few clicks and you're there. Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. But please get comfortable with slides first. You'll be happier. Have fun, David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
I'd also recommend trying Polaroid Insight first, and I agree with David's other comments shown here, as well. If you think you need the power of SilverFast, then make sure you upgrade to version 5.5 if you scan color negatives Version 5.5 gives you something called NegaFix and it's really needed for scanning color negatives. In a message dated 9/30/2001 9:17:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on 9/30/01 9:00 AM PST, JackG wrote: I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. John in OKC- Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. Have fun, David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ? I've made nice A3 prints on my Epson 1160 using scans at 2700dpi with a Nikon LS30. Scans on a SS4000 look bigger, but I'm not convinced that there's a lot more detail in them. I generally scan with Vuescan, and *always* use Infra-red cleaning. Infra-red cleaning saves hours of spotting. Dust and scratches are less obvious in SS4000 scans, so there's less spotting anyway. Rob
Re: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film. Try Vuescan on the same slide. The IR cleaning in Vuescan seems to work a lot better with Kodachrome than ICE. However YMMV. The combination of Kodachrome and IR cleaning is a known issue - the image is not as transparent to IR as in C41 films or most Ektachrome films. IR cleaning doesn't work on silver based BW films but works very well on C41 BW films like T400CN. Rob
Re: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote: Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my budget even for the future :-( ). BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED. It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's features. I have a 233MHz G3 with 640 MB. My CoolScan IV is fast. I turn off GEM ICE during preview which dramatically speeds up previews, exposure (Master Gain) and curve redraws. I especially love the batch scan feature which allows optimizing each frame before starting final scan. . BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to remove grain. The bad thing is that you really need it! Grain isn't too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans. Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain. Same for Kodak Max 400 on the IV (fixed with GEM /or ICE). Ektachrome (200 or 400?) and Kodachrome 64 have low grain . BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film. I've had excellent results with GEM on Kodachrome 64, but results with ICE vary from batch to batch. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print (about 260-270 dpi and that size) Yes, if it's an inkjet print, because the printer resolution is less than this (approx 200dpi sent to the printer). But remember you may wish to crop a frame, and still print at A3, so you might need more pixels. OTOH, it depends on what you mean by 'quality A3'. If you mean something against which, after cropping and printing with less than 200ppi, keen amateur photographers will press their noses and loupes and be hypercritical, the answer is no. If you mean something that will impress less critical friends and relations when hung over the fireplace and viewed from several metres away, you can go much bigger than A3 (at least A2) with 2700 ppi and still have satisfied customers. Regards, good luck, and have lots of fun, Alan T - Original Message - From: Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
