RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Why are you sending attachments to the list? Lawrence Hi all, See enc. scanned from Nikon 8000 (I'm still testing it, it certainly has potential, but it also has limitations...). I rescanned it (without taking the film holder out, same params, i.e., not fine mode) and the problem went away. Any ideas??? Asael
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Lawrence asked Why are you sending attachments to the list? Relax Lawrence, it's OK. Here's a quote from Tony Sleep's mailing list instructions: Posting encoded images is permitted if they are relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME attachment. The listserver will bounce emails which contain large attachments. Cheers Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
On 11/25/01 7:29 PM, Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Relax Lawrence, it's OK. Here's a quote from Tony Sleep's mailing list instructions: Posting encoded images is permitted if they are relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME attachment. The listserver will bounce emails which contain large attachments. Well, there it is then! Not terribly common list practice but the rules is the rules ;-) Lawrence -- Lawrence W. Smith Photography http://www.lwsphoto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
So... now that we are all past this... what about the problem with the scan! Any ideas?! Thanks, Asael - Original Message - From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners halftone.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:38 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 On 11/25/01 7:29 PM, Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Relax Lawrence, it's OK. Here's a quote from Tony Sleep's mailing list instructions: Posting encoded images is permitted if they are relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME attachment. The listserver will bounce emails which contain large attachments. Well, there it is then! Not terribly common list practice but the rules is the rules ;-) Lawrence -- Lawrence W. Smith Photography http://www.lwsphoto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Di lemma
Mike, using a Saved Setting in NS, you can setup ICE, ROC and GEM settings to any defaults you like. First, tweak all the controls in all the palettes to the values you want (e.g. ICE Normal, ROC 0, GEM 2). Then, save the setting (on the Settings menu). I have a setting called Negative Standard. You will notice that your setting has appeared at the bottom of the Settings menu. Now use the Set User Settings menu option. This tells NS to use your chosen settings as the default. Now, no matter what you do with the NS (in terms of tweaks for individual scans) your setting (Negative Standard) is now the default for all scans. You have to perform these steps with a film strip loaded in the motorised adaptor (or with the slide adaptor loaded). When a filmstrip is in the motorised adaptor, you should eject the filmstrip after using the Set User Settings menu option. Then, when you reload it, you will find each frame of the strip has your required default. I dunno if the manual explains this very well, but I didn't twig this until I'd played around quite a lot. Once you get it, it's exceedingly useful. And, oh yeah, ROC (1) is wonderful a lot of the time for odd lighting. Sometimes it's too much but it gives you some of that auto white balance functionality you get with digicams... Jawed (Started scanning again, today. I've got a backlog of 1800 messages - good to read when one is scanning - erm, except for the tedious arguments. Not been scanning for a few months now, because of my new Digicam. Nearly 5000 digicam pix in 3 months, drat, filmscanning is such a chore.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Duncan Sent: 25 September 2001 23:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Di lemma To Jack Phipps, The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out: http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml where there is a picture of an old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent). I'd appreciate a weaker setting on my Nikon IV too. When I used ROC on a tungsten exposed Kodak Max400 negative, I got too much blue noise. The color was much better, but with a little too much blue. I would like the default setting of ROC to be off. I use GEM a lot, but I have to turn ROC off for nearly all my scans. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Hi all, anyone else out there using a Nikon SC8000 with Vuescan? I'm having problems and Ed thinks its my system, so extra input would be welcomed, you can contact me off-list Please contact onlist as well?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma
Paul. I have been writing about focus problem with LS 4000 and LS2000 please keep me out from any questions regarding the LS 8000 scanner. Mikael Risedal From: PAUL GRAHAM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:39:13 -0700 Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE with it. Well, I have the Nikon 8000, and I can quite frankly tell you that the focus issue is a complete non starter. I have no idea where it came from - Mikael in Sweden maybe, but no, it is not an issue. I am hypercritical, and it simply isn't true on any normally flat negative. Digital Ice I dismissed till I tried it, but was shocked how effective it was. I am a pro and have pretty clean m/f negs, but this saves an age of spotting, wasting my time combing over each 550Mb 6x7 file. Really, don't knock it till you try it! I can tell no difference in sharpness on the normal setting at all, and I use Zeiss m/f lenses. Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame. Roc is way too strong even at its lowest settting (Jack!!) but effective. The 8000 is an excellent scanner. Nikonscan sets the standard for UI of all scanner programmes and is easy to learn, yet powerful in its hidden depths. Lawrences tests showed the Nikon to be the sharper of the 2 scanners (only just though, the polaroid is very sharp too), and that was it for me, nothing else mattered really. The new Minolta Mulit Pro is one of those machines with different resolutions for different format. for m/f I belive it is 3200 or 3400 dpi, if that is plenty for you, then its a fine trade off for higher res on 35mm. The $12,000 Imacons that advertise themselves at 5800 dpi do that same trick, and are in fact 3200 dpi for M/F. Paul _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma
The new Minolta Multi Pro is one of those machines with different resolutions for different format. I'd be VERY careful believing any of the dynamic range specs from that scanner. It's probably pretty good, but I doubt it is any better than any of the others that are 14 bits. From what they have on their web site, comparing 14 bit to 16 bit, is, in my opinion, entirely misleading and erroneous. If anyone wants me to go into detail, I'd be happy to ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma
Thanks for your comments Paul. Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame. Digital GEM is designed to reduce noise, most commonly grain in film. There are times when it will make a very noticeable difference, especially in skin textures. There is one example at: http://www.asf.com/products/gem/ that shows a couple about to kiss. It was a portrait session done by our Chief Scientist, Al Edgar. When the woman saw the picture, she thought she looked younger in the picture with the grain removed. Needless to say, she was happy. I'd like for you to try it again. Examine a very small area, say 8 mm by 10 mm printed at 8 by 10 where the original is over or under exposed. Roc is way too strong even at its lowest setting (Jack!!) but effective. I'll pass this on to our engineers. Maybe we need a weaker setting. If you are trying it on recently exposed, well exposed and newly processed film (is this you Paul?), you can get some interesting but maybe over colorful results. What you might want to consider is to make two images, with and without Digital ROC. Then in an image editor, combine the two by painting the brighter colors in where you want them. The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out: http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml where there is a picture of an old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent). Good luck with your Nikon 8000. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: PAUL GRAHAM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE with it. Well, I have the Nikon 8000, and I can quite frankly tell you that the focus issue is a complete non starter. I have no idea where it came from - Mikael in Sweden maybe, but no, it is not an issue. I am hypercritical, and it simply isn't true on any normally flat negative. Digital Ice I dismissed till I tried it, but was shocked how effective it was. I am a pro and have pretty clean m/f negs, but this saves an age of spotting, wasting my time combing over each 550Mb 6x7 file. Really, don't knock it till you try it! I can tell no difference in sharpness on the normal setting at all, and I use Zeiss m/f lenses. Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame. Roc is way too strong even at its lowest settting (Jack!!) but effective. The 8000 is an excellent scanner. Nikonscan sets the standard for UI of all scanner programmes and is easy to learn, yet powerful in its hidden depths. Lawrences tests showed the Nikon to be the sharper of the 2 scanners (only just though, the polaroid is very sharp too), and that was it for me, nothing else mattered really. The new Minolta Mulit Pro is one of those machines with different resolutions for different format. for m/f I belive it is 3200 or 3400 dpi, if that is plenty for you, then its a fine trade off for higher res on 35mm. The $12,000 Imacons that advertise themselves at 5800 dpi do that same trick, and are in fact 3200 dpi for M/F. Paul
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE
thanks for your prompt feedback Jack, regarding ROC, I was using it on an underexposed negative, as I think you recommended a while back. ROC worked, shockingly so, but way too much. a far weaker setting (like two or three notches down, not just one) for such thin negs would be great, and then maybe something to reduce the grain increase that comes with it... I know that's what GEM is supposed to do, but my scans quickly looked softer, unacceptable to me. Paul
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Di lemma
To Jack Phipps, The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out: http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml where there is a picture of an old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent). I'd appreciate a weaker setting on my Nikon IV too. When I used ROC on a tungsten exposed Kodak Max400 negative, I got too much blue noise. The color was much better, but with a little too much blue. I would like the default setting of ROC to be off. I use GEM a lot, but I have to turn ROC off for nearly all my scans. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Paul, from just where did you get yours??? I have yet to find any vendor in cyberspace who has one in stock! I'm sure there are scores of others who also are trying to locate a unit. I think my dealer might still have a few left. I can check with them on Monday. Please contact me off list if you'd like their contact information. Hello Paul, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I would like the contact info of your dealer. Thanks again. Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Is anyone using the Nikon 8000? How does it handle those big floppy 6x6 and 6x9 films? Any other comment or link appreciated. Hi. I got one the other week good machine in general. Paul, from just where did you get yours??? I have yet to find any vendor in cyberspace who has one in stock! I'm sure there are scores of others who also are trying to locate a unit. Thanks in advance. Joyfully, -david-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Paul, from just where did you get yours??? I have yet to find any vendor in cyberspace who has one in stock! I'm sure there are scores of others who also are trying to locate a unit. I think my dealer might still have a few left. I can check with them on Monday. Please contact me off list if you'd like their contact information.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Dale: I have had my 8000 for about a month. After unpacking and setting up the scanner I quickly determined that the 120 negative holder that comes with the unit would not hold the negatives flat. In my opinion it is an extremely poor design. Perhaps I didn't play with it enough to effectively use it. I now use only the glass carrier. However, I was shocked at the $300 price for the glass carrier. Although I am getting better at the scanning software I anxiously await for Silverfast. Multi-pass scans on a 120 negative seem to take forever. Otherwise the unit has been flawless in operation. Bob - Original Message - From: DaleH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 Is anyone using the Nikon 8000? How does it handle those big floppy 6x6 and 6x9 films? Any other comment or link appreciated. DaleH
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Is anyone using the Nikon 8000? How does it handle those big floppy 6x6 and 6x9 films? Any other comment or link appreciated. The 120 filmholder that comes with the scanner grips the sides of the film, and you can tension it to flatten the film. If you films have a pronounced curl, you'll probably need to buy the glass holder.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL ba...
Chris I got the 8000 from a company called T4 in Witney, Oxfordshire. Telephone 01993 702687. I know they had a job getting hold of it but they have great service and are very friendly. Regards, Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL ba...
Chris, which company sold the 8000? Chris Street www.megapixels.co.uk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 August 2001 14:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL ba... We have just taken delivery of an 8000 and so far are very pleased although we have been too busy to do any extensive testing. If someone could let me know the most predicatable settings and transparency type to get banding I will see if I can reproduce here. If I can I can help add weight to the problem from here. Regards, Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 and ICE/ROC: are they really so bad???
I consider features like ICE essential for scanning C-41 negatives, as I have never received a roll of C-41 from the lab that did not contain a forest of dust and scratches, and it's either spend hours in Photoshop cleaning the scans, or let ICE wash all that away. However, I don't even use ICE for slides, as they are usually very clean, even from one-hour labs, and I don't use them for BW negatives, either, because I develop most BW myself and take enough care with it that it is free of dust and scratches and thus requires no special processing. - Original Message - From: Andrea de Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 16:19 Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 and ICE/ROC: are they really so bad??? Hello, as you can see from the post below from another mailing list, DIGITALSILVER, bad reports are giving to the Nikon 8000 and the ICE cleaning sw. It is really true also on some of you, or this matter has now been fixed? I would like to know that since I would like to consider to buy the Nikon 8000 REALLY for the ICE and ROC features Cheers; Andrea -- http://edu.alinari.it B2E http://business.alinari.it B2B THE NEW IMAGING SERVICE NEAR YOU! -- From: Moreno Polloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ICE and GEM features didn't seem very important to me either, but now that I have the scanner, I use them often enough to consider them essential. They really do save a lot of time. No matter how well I clean the images beforehand, there's always a few specks that sneak in. The banding with the 8000 (in my experience) has never occured during straight scans, but only when ICE or multi-sampling is enabled. NikonScan 3.2 is due soon and hopefully that will help. From: Tim Spragens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bad news, Lawrence, sorry to hear it. Has anyone had difficulties with the Polaroid? The cleanup hardware/software of the Nikon aren't so much of an interest to me, but good, reliable straight scans are. I was hoping the Nikons would be flowing out now, allowing more comparisons between the two. Tim I can't speak for anyone else but I've had 2 8000's and they both had banding issues. The second one has been at Nikon repair for almost 2 weeks now and is as they say 'still on the bench'. needless to say, I'm not too happy at this point. That damn thing had better work correctly when it get returned to me or Nikon is going to get more than an ear full...
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 and ICE/ROC: are they really so bad???
Andrea wrote: as you can see from the post below from another mailing list, DIGITALSILVER, bad reports are giving to the Nikon 8000 and the ICE cleaning sw. It is really true also on some of you, or this matter has now been fixed? I would like to know that since I would like to consider to buy the Nikon 8000 REALLY for the ICE and ROC features The problem described was about banding, not a problem with ICE, ROC or GEM. ICE works just fine. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
Moreno wrote: I've also had some banding issues, but if I scan 14 bit, at either 2000 or 4000 dpi, with 1x multisampling, the images are clean. Don't shoot me, but I wonder if this is a new variant of the jaggies issue from the earlier scanners? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
I haven't been following this thread of late, but isn't there a setting that takes longer but DOES NOT band at all? If so, why not just use that? Epson printers frequently band at all but the slowest settings, so that's what I always use. This would seem like a similar situation? Just wondering Dave - Original Message - From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:32 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands... Well, My 8000 is back from a trip to Nikon service and they could find nothing wrong with it so they cleaned it and sent it back. Needless to say, it still has the same banding issues it did when I sent it. I have it plugged into it's very own UPS, set away from other stuff etc. No help. Now what to do? I am going to call them in the morning but I don't think it's going to help to do so. They are still pretending this issue does not really exist. Funny how so many of use are suffering from something imagined... Customer service, have your checkbook ready because this unit is coming home to the mothership for good Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * *
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
Rob wonders ... Moreno wrote: I've also had some banding issues, but if I scan 14 bit, at either 2000 or 4000 dpi, with 1x multisampling, the images are clean. ... I wonder if this is a new variant of the jaggies issue from the earlier scanners? It would at least be part of the troubleshooting effort to determine if the same banding occurs with Vuescan(?) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
It would at least be part of the troubleshooting effort to determine if the same banding occurs with Vuescan(?) Does Vuescan support the 8000? Rumour from the Nikon reps says that NikonScan 3.2 will be out shortly. Who know, this may help with some of the issues.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
Moreno, I can do that too but isn't it a bit like saying 'my car doesn't stall as long as I don't use 5th gear and go over 60 miles/km per hr'? These things should not band, period. Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * * I've also had some banding issues, but if I scan 14 bit, at either 2000 or 4000 dpi, with 1x multisampling, the images are clean.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
I can do that too but isn't it a bit like saying 'my car doesn't stall as long as I don't use 5th gear and go over 60 miles/km per hr'? These things should not band, period. At my end, scans with the 8000 at 1x show less noise in the shadows than some scans done with an Imacon. And I scan everything at 14 bit. So these limitations are not hindering my productivity. I do agree that for the price, the scanner shouldn't show any banding at all under any conditions. But for now, it's something that I can live with.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL ba...
I get it in areas of blue/purple (think storm clouds) when scanning at 16x multisampling and ICE on. When multisample is turned off, the problem rarely occurs. Lawrence Lawrence Smith** visit my site and participate ** in this weeks image critique ** http://www.lwsphoto.com ** -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:37 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL ba...We have just taken delivery of an 8000 and so far are very pleased although we have been too busy to do any extensive testing. If someone could let me know the most predicatable settings and transparency type to get banding I will see if I can reproduce here. If I can I can help add weight to the problem from here. Regards, Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
I would return it to the place you bought it, citing it does not work correctly, show them the banding and Nikon will not fix it. Ask them for a full refund (check with your credit card company, they may stand behind you on this, since it hasn't worked correctly since day one), or that they give you a new one, and continue to do so until you get one that doesn't band. Give them hard examples, and they can't refute the problem. When you sent it in, did you include samples of your problem for them to see? As well as exactly what modes etc. you used to see that problem? They probably did not run it exactly as you did, and that may be why they are not seeing the problem. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands... Well, My 8000 is back from a trip to Nikon service and they could find nothing wrong with it so they cleaned it and sent it back. Needless to say, it still has the same banding issues it did when I sent it. I have it plugged into it's very own UPS, set away from other stuff etc. No help. Now what to do? I am going to call them in the morning but I don't think it's going to help to do so. They are still pretending this issue does not really exist. Funny how so many of use are suffering from something imagined... Customer service, have your checkbook ready because this unit is coming home to the mothership for good Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * *
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Isaac Crawford wrote: It is because there is no longer any money to be made on 35mm equipment. As well as on digital video cameras, computers, domestic appliances. That's the economy of today, sadly. Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Well, by mass distributors I was referring to BH, Camera World, etc. Most things nikon are sold at or near cost by these folks. They aren't doing that with scanners because of what David had mentioned... I can reasonably assure you that BH and others do not sell at cost, whether it's a scanner or a camera. I am familiar with wholesale pricing on some of these products, and they are making a fair profit. I see, and how long have you been in the business? If by fair profit you mean 0-5 percent, I guess you're right. They can make some decent profit on gray products, but not on most Nikon USA products. The mail order places might be able to survive on 5% if they have minimal overhead and no storefront. BH's markup is more than that. Local dealers might be two to three times that. It varies on the product and the business model. Obviously a full service dealer need to charge more, but their customers are willing to pay extra for service, support, and intelligent sales advice. Who do you know that's selling Nikon scanners at cost. You have it almost right... If they make 5 bucks on a camera, plus whatever they make on the other things they sell, they will (and do) make quite a profit with volume. It is in all the other things that they make real profit. Straps, filters, film, bags, etc... Sell a couple thousand of these things a day and the money will roll in... And I can assure you, they do not lose a dollar, at the very worst, they will break even. This has been going on for some time. Have you ever wondered why so many local camera stores are going out of business all over the country? It is because there is no longer any money to be made on 35mm equipment. Many places are strictly photo finishing and used equipment these days instead of new equipment sales. The mail order places might be able to survive on 5% if they have minimal overhead and no storefront. BH's markup is more than that. Local dealers might be two to three times that. It varies on the product and the business model. Obviously a full service dealer need to charge more, but their customers are willing to pay extra for service, support, and intelligent sales advice. That's what I mean... If the scanners are the same price, why wait around for a Nikon when you can get the Polaroid now? Because some people compared the two and prefer the Nikon, obviously. Err, how? There are no Nikon's to be had. You can compare specs and features, but not scanners... My dealer had both Nikon and Polariod scanners set up as demos. I compared features between the two, did some on-line research, and saw sample scans from both. I preferred and purchased the Nikon. I'm sure many others go through the same process in choosing their scanners. There are of course people that need specific features, but there are many that do not even consider the Polaroid just because it is Polaroid. Probably. So what? I think you need to give people more credit than that. If someone is dropping $3k on a scanner, they're likely to do some product research and make an informed purchase decision. You'd be amazed... In my *experience* of selling camera gear, the higher the price, the less serious the user is for the most part. There are of course many professional and deadly serious amateur photographers that make investments in good tools (like the members of this list), but the majority of high ticket items are sold to people that want a high ticket item, not a tool. I can see how that would apply to cameras. A lot of dentists own Hasselblads. A lot of Leicas will never even see the factory shrinkwrap opened, as that would reduce their collectible value. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anyone collecting scanners.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Moreno Polloni wrote: I see, and how long have you been in the business? If by fair profit you mean 0-5 percent, I guess you're right. They can make some decent profit on gray products, but not on most Nikon USA products. The mail order places might be able to survive on 5% if they have minimal overhead and no storefront. BH's markup is more than that. Local dealers might be two to three times that. It varies on the product and the business model. Obviously a full service dealer need to charge more, but their customers are willing to pay extra for service, support, and intelligent sales advice. Once again, Nikon cameras, with few exceptions are sold at or very near cost. Everything else they sell isn't, that is how they (and we) make their money. Who do you know that's selling Nikon scanners at cost. Nobody because (drum roll please) of what David said in the first place. You have it almost right... If they make 5 bucks on a camera, plus whatever they make on the other things they sell, they will (and do) make quite a profit with volume. It is in all the other things that they make real profit. Straps, filters, film, bags, etc... Sell a couple thousand of these things a day and the money will roll in... And I can assure you, they do not lose a dollar, at the very worst, they will break even. This has been going on for some time. Have you ever wondered why so many local camera stores are going out of business all over the country? It is because there is no longer any money to be made on 35mm equipment. Many places are strictly photo finishing and used equipment these days instead of new equipment sales. The mail order places might be able to survive on 5% if they have minimal overhead and no storefront. BH's markup is more than that. BH does not have more than that on most of their Nikon products. How are you coming up with your numbers? I get mine by having to match their prices. We pay the same amount that they do (I work for one of the largest photo retailers on the east coast), and I can tell you that the markup is rarely above 5%. There are of course people that need specific features, but there are many that do not even consider the Polaroid just because it is Polaroid. Probably. So what? Nothing... Sheesh. I was just pointing out my opinion on blind consumers, nothing more. I think you need to give people more credit than that. If someone is dropping $3k on a scanner, they're likely to do some product research and make an informed purchase decision. You'd be amazed... In my *experience* of selling camera gear, the higher the price, the less serious the user is for the most part. There are of course many professional and deadly serious amateur photographers that make investments in good tools (like the members of this list), but the majority of high ticket items are sold to people that want a high ticket item, not a tool. I can see how that would apply to cameras. A lot of dentists own Hasselblads. A lot of Leicas will never even see the factory shrinkwrap opened, as that would reduce their collectible value. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anyone collecting scanners. It has very little to do with collecting. Collectors influence the price of rare, hard to get used items. In other words, collectable items...:-) High ticket items like the F5, EOS1V, Leicas, F64 bags, expensive binoculars, etc. are bought mostly by people that want the best. I've sold plenty of expensive scanners to people with impressive computers that didn't have the first clue on how to use them. Anyway, this is drifting awfully OT, so I'll stop now:-) Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Anyway, this is drifting awfully OT, so I'll stop now:-) Me too.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
I forwarded Peter's questions to Henry Posner at BH (I was curious about availability also). Henry's answers are below. Bob For the past few months I have been checking with BH in New York City to inquire about the availability of the Nikon 8000. Each time I have been told maybe in July, etc.. The other day I was told ...we don't know when the units will be available. Additionally, they will not take an order for the machine. The information we have been providing in answer to this question has been the information provided to our buyer by Nikon USA. Since they have changed the date so many times, some of our brighter lights now understand that ...we don't know... while less satisfying is actually more accurate. For all I know they're being unloaded as I type, or they'll be here before Yom Kippur, or they'll be here when the get here. Apparently the 8000 is available somewhere--but where? Beats me. What makes you think it's available somewhere? I wonder why BH doesn't have the 8000 in that it is such a large volume photo store--probably the largest in the world. Because Nikon USA isn't shipping it yet, for reasons to which we are not privy. Could it be that BH believes or learned that the 8000 has problems? Whether or not it could be the fact is that this is not the case. If that is the case, could they have decided not to carry it until whatever the problem is straightened out--if there is a problem at all? We are unaware of any problem, other than availability. They do have the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 in stock and I am tempted to buy it instead of waiting any longer for the Nikon 8000. This is a well-reviewed scanner, but in the interest of full disclosure I am compelled to remind you of Polaroid's current tenuous financial status. (BTW, before this generates further rumors, I have NO inside info WHATEVER on Polaroid's current status or future plans other than what any of us can read in the Wall Street Journal, or wherever one obtains his (her) current investment/financial news.) Any knowledge or thoughts about the availability and/or the seeming unavailability of the Nikon will be most appreciated. Sure would. Nikon is, as usual, close-mouthed. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training BH Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Bob--thanks for forwarding my questions about the availability to Mr. Posner. I have seen his responses elsewhere about a variety of questions revolving around photographic equipment and especially those about BH. I have been a long time, and very satisfied, customer of BH. I am still curious as the 8000 appears to be available in Europe (as does the Nikon D1x which I also would like to buy) and in limited quantities the US. Otherwise how could there be reviews about the device. Indeed, as I recall, there has been a very long discussion from Nikon 8000 owners on this list about the device. These owners were finding some serious problems with the unit. Banding was one of the issues. Mr. Lawrence Smith even mentioned that he was taking his 8000 back to BH for replacement. He also had long discussions about the shortcomings with the 8000 with the Nikon techies. It only makes one more curious. Peter - Original Message - From: Robert Hubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 I forwarded Peter's questions to Henry Posner at BH (I was curious about availability also). Henry's answers are below. Bob For the past few months I have been checking with BH in New York City to inquire about the availability of the Nikon 8000. Each time I have been told maybe in July, etc.. The other day I was told ...we don't know when the units will be available. Additionally, they will not take an order for the machine. The information we have been providing in answer to this question has been the information provided to our buyer by Nikon USA. Since they have changed the date so many times, some of our brighter lights now understand that ...we don't know... while less satisfying is actually more accurate. For all I know they're being unloaded as I type, or they'll be here before Yom Kippur, or they'll be here when the get here. Apparently the 8000 is available somewhere--but where? Beats me. What makes you think it's available somewhere? I wonder why BH doesn't have the 8000 in that it is such a large volume photo store--probably the largest in the world. Because Nikon USA isn't shipping it yet, for reasons to which we are not privy. Could it be that BH believes or learned that the 8000 has problems? Whether or not it could be the fact is that this is not the case. If that is the case, could they have decided not to carry it until whatever the problem is straightened out--if there is a problem at all? We are unaware of any problem, other than availability. They do have the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 in stock and I am tempted to buy it instead of waiting any longer for the Nikon 8000. This is a well-reviewed scanner, but in the interest of full disclosure I am compelled to remind you of Polaroid's current tenuous financial status. (BTW, before this generates further rumors, I have NO inside info WHATEVER on Polaroid's current status or future plans other than what any of us can read in the Wall Street Journal, or wherever one obtains his (her) current investment/financial news.) Any knowledge or thoughts about the availability and/or the seeming unavailability of the Nikon will be most appreciated. Sure would. Nikon is, as usual, close-mouthed. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training BH Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000
Peter wrote: I am still curious as the 8000 appears to be available in Europe (as does the Nikon D1x which I also would like to buy) and in limited quantities the US. Otherwise how could there be reviews about the device. Yes they have the 8000 at my local photo joint. So it is available here (in Norway). They are probably letting us juropeans beta test it first ;) Håkon (who lusts for one, but is stuck with the ls-30 for now)
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
That's what I suspect, or that it uses some type of averaging process of several rows overlapped in the single row mode. Further, I suspect the middle CCD strip is the most insulated from anomalies (electronic, and spill over). Art Rob Geraghty wrote: Rafe wrote: Not entirely sure what this does -- the Nikon manual says it uses one CCD row rather than three -- but it did completely eliminate the banding. The price is that the scan takes three times as long (!!!) Maybe the banding is caused by differences in the response of the three CCD rows? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
This is sounding a lot like Epson's micro printing mode to eliminate banding during printing. It seems it might be using the middle CCD row, which is probably most stable of the three. As you said, it would slow things down quick a bit. The dense scan banding brings back memories of my HP PhotoSmart... Seems CCD scanners still are not quite there... maybe a few more generations? Art rafeb wrote: As luck/fate would have it, I'm now seeing very similar banding to what Lawrence Smith reported and demonstrated with his sample slide a day or two back. In a nutshell: vertical banding on a landscape-format negative (horizontal banding on a lansdcape-format slide) that looks a bit like venetian blinds. Very regular and periodic. I've seen it now on both slides and negatives. The problem may be related to overly-dense transparencies, but then again maybe not. I'm not sure if this banding has always been here on this scanner, or if it just appeared. In any case it's pretty awful, at least on some images. I just got off the phone with Nikon Tech support (800-NIKON-UX) and they did offer the following solution, which did eliminate the banding: In the Tools Pallette, under Scanner Extras, item CCD Scan Mode -- check the Super Fine Scan box.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000: An Unbiased Review
* overall, excellent scans, especially on 645 negatives. Quality on par with the Leaf 45, maybe even marginally better. (Sorry, Austin.) If I were the Leaf designer, I'd take that as a compliment! For a 12 year old design, it does hold its own, and if I had to do it all over again, I'd certainly give the Nikon a very close look, and probably would end up with it. On the aside, my Leaf is working far far better than it was when you were here, probably because I know how to operate it better, and because it's worked it self in, so you might want to consider doing some re-scans. I would like to compare some BW scans of the same negative. Perhaps I could scan something, and then send you a CD with my scan, as well as the negative, and you could scan it and compare? * surprisingly good auto-exposure, at least on most negatives. I use it often -- and I'm usually very fussy about scanner settings. * no film-type profiles to choose from -- scanner is uncannily accurate at properly inverting different types of C41 film Isn't that amazing ;-) * good software (NikonScan 3.1) despite some conflicts and issues with installation. It has all the essential controls I want, including histograms and a good curves tool. All in all, one of the best vendor-supplied scanner drivers that I've worked with. My big thing that I find I REALLY want in a scanner driver is the ability to set setpoints manually, as well as a decent tone tool, and histogram. Is the histogram 16 bits (if you're doing a 16 bit scan that is), and can you set the setpoints manually? Can you rotate (and even zoom in on) the preview window? * large, noisy machine. Relatively, it's hardly a valid complaint ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000: An Unbiased Review
Rafe, What are your other settings for the 5 minute scans? I find that a 16x multisample, 14bit, ICE normal scan of a 645 transpanency takes about 20-25 mintues Lawrence * Fast. 645 scans w/o ICE in about 5 minutes. (on Athlon 700 MHz machine with 512 MB RAM) Add about 50% more time for ICE. [But one other user has emailed me about very slow scans...]
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000: An Unbiased Review
Title: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000: An Unbiased Review I also have an LS8000. I got it a week ago and was having the banding problem (as well as AF and various other problems). The super fine CCD mode did fix it but not I'm not having the problem even though I'm not using super fine CCD mode. Nikon tech support (who I'm pleased with so far) has recommended that I send it in for service or replacement. Anyway, a very short review is: Pro - Excellent scans, reasonably fast considering what's going on, customer service very good, software has a nice feature set, Digital ICE seems to work as advertised without softening the scan. Con - Bugs, bugs, bugs. The software just closes on it's own occasionally. If the scanner is on but NikonScan isn't open, I can't load a film holder. I'm getting sporadic can't autofocus messages. I don't think the 120 film strip holder is that great. I can usually get the film to be fairly flat but it takes care. For the price they should have included the glass 120 holder. Overall I really like it and it has all the features I could reasonably ask for. However, I'd be in love with the thing if there were no bugs. I have to wonder what they were doing when they delayed the ship date. Paul Wilson -Original Message- From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000: An Unbiased Review Lest I come off as a shill for Nikon, here's my summary on the Nikon 8000 ED, after three weeks of fairly intense usage. There's a little bit of ammo for Mr. Hemingway here, but also some stuff that ought to concern him. The Good: * overall, excellent scans, especially on 645 negatives. Quality on par with the Leaf 45, maybe even marginally better. (Sorry, Austin.) * ICE really works. I'm very impressed. * Fast. 645 scans w/o ICE in about 5 minutes. (on Athlon 700 MHz machine with 512 MB RAM) Add about 50% more time for ICE. [But one other user has emailed me about very slow scans...] * surprisingly good auto-exposure, at least on most negatives. I use it often -- and I'm usually very fussy about scanner settings. * no film-type profiles to choose from -- scanner is uncannily accurate at properly inverting different types of C41 film * good software (NikonScan 3.1) despite some conflicts and issues with installation. It has all the essential controls I want, including histograms and a good curves tool. All in all, one of the best vendor-supplied scanner drivers that I've worked with. * clever, sturdy film holders (but not without some problems -- see below) * good 24/7 tech support by phone, very little waiting. Rapid escalation to 2nd Level support if need be, but 2nd-Level is only available during normal working hours. The Bad: * large, noisy machine. Scanning mechanism has a suprisingly coarse sound. Offhand, I don't see why the machine needs to be this large. * Film holders sometimes seem to wiggle as they're being moved about by the scanner (during thumbnail and preview acquisition, when the carrier reverses direction.) This does not inspire confidence in the mechanics. * 35 mm film holder: very flat negatives can slide around. I find I need a tiny piece of tape at the edge of the filmstrip to prevent this. * 35 mm slide holder: possible auto-focus issue (but I need to investigate this further.) * 645 film holder (glassless): occasionally a negative at the end of a strip can't be made to lie flat. When this happens, focus goes to hell. (Apparently not much depth-of-field.) * 645 holder: 4 images (max) per film strip. * 645 holder: the method used by NikonScan to locate the images is ridiculous and error- prone. It can be worked around but that adds some time, as one needs to iterate between an offset setting and another thumbnail/ preview. * I long for a non-batch film-loading mechanism like with my earlier film scanners. The movable film-holder slows everything down. Each time you enter the TWAIN driver you need to re-acquire thumbnails and the preview of the image you want to scan. Slows things down a lot. This could be avoided by using NikonScan stand- alone but the problem there is that its TIFF file save operation is so dreadfully slow, it would negate any time savings. (Takes as long to save a 170 MB TIFF file as it took to make the scan in the first place.) * Banding issues on dense slides/negatives. The workaround is to use SuperFine scan mode but that slows down scanning by a factor of three. In summary: it does the essential functions very well, but with a number of quirks and bothersome user-interface headaches. The banding issue is the most worrisome; I've only seen this in the last 24 hours or so. The Super Fine Scan fix seems to work so far, but I'll feel better about
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
Rafe wrote: Not entirely sure what this does -- the Nikon manual says it uses one CCD row rather than three -- but it did completely eliminate the banding. The price is that the scan takes three times as long (!!!) Maybe the banding is caused by differences in the response of the three CCD rows? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 scanner
In a message dated 4/24/2001 12:44:16 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am reliably informed that the Nikon 8000 scanner goes on sale next week in the UK. Price around £2600 including sales tax (17.5%) Anyone got one in the US yet? Is Vuescan supporting yet Ed? I have the code in VueScan already to support this, but I suspect there will be a few glitches I'll need to iron out. I've got FireWire support working on Windows 98/ME now (it already works on Windows 2000) and I'll release this in VueScan 7.0.15 in a day or two. I don't have firewire support working on Mac OS yet, but I installed OS 9.1 yesterday and hope to work on FireWire on Mac OS in the next few weeks. I didn't think the LS-8000 would be available till June, but it's always possible that they're early with the shipments. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 scanner
None of my usual suppliers has any. As soon as one does. Lawrence I am reliably informed that the Nikon 8000 scanner goes on sale next week in the UK. Price around £2600 including sales tax (17.5%) Anyone got one in the US yet? Is Vuescan supporting yet Ed? pg
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Can't speak for the rest of the world, but here all that's happened is there are way too many web designers already, and that's before adding the out of work photographers. And the "value" and pay schedules for "web CD art" just aren't going to be anything near what LP art paid. Art Gordon Tassi wrote: They will switch to doing graphics for Web Sites, CD graphics that accompany the mp3 audio, and other forms of e-commerce. In fact, some photographers and graphic artists are already doing that. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: . What's going to happen to all those designers and artists/photographers when no cover art is needed? Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:06:26 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Images in general are becoming more and more just so much "stuff" and old stuff is being recycled. Exactly so. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Tony Sleep wrote: And if you really want to get depressed, the next phase is e-publishing instead of print. I think that's totally inescapable as the web becomes ubiquitous and wireless PDA technology evolves. At that point the newsagents, printers and distributors join us in the dole queue. Which is why I'm working so hard at a small pre-emptive counterstrike, about which more later... :) I was just thinking about what has happened to music distribution over the years. There were 78 rpm records, where a couple of short selections required art for the front. Then came 45 rpm singles which often came in slip sleeves without art, and LPs which required artwork, some of which is legendary. Then CDs show up, and the artwork became tiny, and therefore less significant. And finally, downloadable music and MP3... no artwork required. What's going to happen to all those designers and artists/photographers when no cover art is needed? Greeting Cards were big business (and still are) but now comes e-cards, many of which are free for the sending. Further, companies like MS have bought up rights to thousands of card fronts and sell them as clip art for next to nothing. A lot of people also now have the tools to produce their own/with or without the help of clip art. Images in general are becoming more and more just so much "stuff" and old stuff is being recycled. With the advent of cheap "printable computer screens", art collections from the famous museums will be available for download or on disk and be projected on these. There's a reason Gates/Corbis have bought up digital rights to so many collections of images and art. And the sad truth is, there is so much art out there now, if no new images were ever created, most of us would still never run out of images we've never seen. One of many, Art Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Michael Wilkinson" michael@infocus- keep smiling "When your smiling... when your smiling the whole.. world.. smiles... with-you". Richard Corbett - the singing amateur
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
There was a great April Fool I read last year for a digital camera that worked without lens or image sensor. All it had was a compass and GPS linked to the shutter release. When the user got home there'd be a professionally photographed version of that scene from that angle in those lighting conditions waiting on the mat... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?=) wrote: At 19:35 22/02/2001 +, you wrote: "What does that mean squire?" I hear you ask... well what it means my son is that the photographers day's will be numbered, except for their legs and arms that istheir brain will be totally redundant as the appropriate software will do the job, faster, more reliably, with greater consistency, better quality, more imaginatively and finally.cheaper. it may work for a professional photographer, but it will fail with amateurs. The biggest amount of stuffed pics comes from Japan, with the highest number of full auto, super duper cameras. You can replace almost all members of your body, except one. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:35:49 - Dicky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Repro houses are going to get hammered again. You swine.. I'll never forgive you for that comment. Sorry :-) Unfortunately I see photography largely transforming to a sort of global, copyright-free digital clip-art. Any niche any of us can spot and occupy is horridly transient, right now. The boundaries between professional and amateur are dissolving in the process - have a look at www.alamy.com for the way the wind is blowing. To the extent that publishers take up this sort of service, plus the royalty-free distributions from the likes of Corbis, the result will be a vastly diminished market for bespoke professional photography and a total loss of scanning business for the repro industry. And if you really want to get depressed, the next phase is e-publishing instead of print. I think that's totally inescapable as the web becomes ubiquitous and wireless PDA technology evolves. At that point the newsagents, printers and distributors join us in the dole queue. Which is why I'm working so hard at a small pre-emptive counterstrike, about which more later... :) You are dead right, BTW, this is all soothsaying and flaky as hell. The trouble is we all have to make a best guess in order to try and stay ahead of the curve - and in business. Leave it until it's actually happened and it will slowly dawn that the clients have all disappeared. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Tony wrote: Sorry :-) Unfortunately I see photography largely transforming to a sort of global, copyright-free digital clip-art. Any niche any of us can spot and occupy is horridly transient, right now. The boundaries between professional and amateur are dissolving in the process. The lines were drawn when when Eastman introduced roll-film. Professionals don't have to worry that much, IMHO, because the amateur doesn't have the dedication and/or the skill and/or many layers of finess that have the professionals--nor, for that matter, do many of them! There will always be room for the Professional. The catch is, that they have to STAY professional. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Dicky wrote: - Original Message - From: "Michael Wilkinson" michael@infocus- keep smiling "When your smiling... when your smiling the whole.. world.. smiles... with-you". Richard Corbett - the singing amateur Don't quit you day job ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Another comment to add to Roman's If it were true that the automation will replace the brain, then why do professional writers make so much money when we have word processors? These yechno auto toys are all meant to be extensions of and not replacements for the brain... the brain is the creative center that makes the decision of where to point the robot camera... The other thing is, the more programmed and creative these things get, the smarter the human using them has to be to figure out to overcome the stupid programming... My N90s is an example, another is my Minolta Elite scanner software, I never let that make the decision as to the exposure... Mike M. Roman Kielich wrote: At 19:35 22/02/2001 +, you wrote: "What does that mean squire?" I hear you ask... well what it means my son is that the photographers day's will be numbered, except for their legs and arms that istheir brain will be totally redundant as the appropriate software will do the job, faster, more reliably, with greater consistency, better quality, more imaginatively and finally.cheaper. it may work for a professional photographer, but it will fail with amateurs. The biggest amount of stuffed pics comes from Japan, with the highest number of full auto, super duper cameras. You can replace almost all members of your body, except one. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Dicky wrote: Actually I have every confidence in the abilities of the man camera manufacturers to produce the totally automated and independent self operational camera before the next decade is out. "What does that mean squire?" I hear you ask... well what it means my son is that the photographers day's will be numbered, except for their legs and arms that istheir brain will be totally redundant as the appropriate software will do the job, faster, more reliably, with greater consistency, better quality, more imaginatively and finally.cheaper. Perhaps once cameras can take instructions from clients and produce work which meets those needs (including having the work done "yesterday" and being able to negotiate with 4 bosses each demanding a different "look"), and further does so in a manner that emulates a certain photographer's "vision" or style. Forget those program modes labeled "Sports", "Macro" or "Portrait" . the next cameras are just going to have "Ansel Adams", "Helmut Newton", "Richard Avadon", "Tony Sleep" ;-) and other modes. However, by then, Tony will be living off the licensing royalties from the "Tony Sleep" mode on those cameras, anyway, so who cares..., right? Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Mr Wilkinson PLEASE! Everyone likes to talk futures, it's fun and what's more it costs nothing, and what's even more, anyone can do it. Soothsaying has been with us always and always will be with us. Just remember...soothsayers never make money because they never guess right often enough, but they do spend an inordinate amount of time on the lecture circuit - in other words they become famous for saying a lot and producing very little if anything at all. Mr. Corbett, Thank you for diminishing my prior statements to so much hot air and useless commentary. How very "british" of you. (See how easy it is to summate a person with one simple comment?) What some people refer to as "soothsayers" others call visionaries. A good example of such a person is Arthur C. Clarke, (who perhaps escaped to Sri Lanka to avoid just such ridicule??) Besides being a genius, and "soothsayer" (futurist), he also holds patents to some very valuable property, some of which have made space flight possible. Apparently, he lives quite comfortably on the revenues and royalties off these and his books. Most of his patents, by the way were based upon ideas for processes or products that did not exist (other than in his mind) at the time he conceived of them. In fact, apparently, he hold patents on a number of things that still haven't been made. Anyone know of a digital magic wand being developed anywhere (:-) Exactly. People stuck firmly in the "reality" of the time never know what a magic wand looks like, and likely would step right over it, until someone less "grounded" picks it up and calls it something you can pronounce. As someone whom I can't recall by name once said, "To know the limits of what is possible, you must first try to do what is currently impossible." One thing I will agree with, when it comes to predicting anything much beyond the immediate future, we are much more often wrong than right. All that proves to me is that the logical chain of events is rarely followed linearly, and that is usually due to break-throughs rarely considered or conceived of at the time predictions are made. Quite honestly, whether Apple systems or PCs became the standard in industry doesn't change the fact that the whole desktop computer development came from the ideas and concepts that Jobs and Wazniak put together in that basement. Historically, rarely is the one who conceptualizes an idea the one who is remembered for it, nor the one who greatly profits from it. Free thinkers often make terrible (or aren't interested in being) business men (and for good reason). I'm sure you've heard that British Telecom has been attempting to sue all the major internet providers because they claim to own patents on the "idea" of the wwweb. It would seem the bigwigs there couldn't quite figure out what to do with the patent which most assuredly one of their employees came up with which, was described "a method a piece of computer software mitigates navigation by a user through pages of data" (US Patent #4873662) which they ended up doing nothing with. Thankfully, Tim Berners-Lee, Marc Andreeson and others "discovered" this idea some years later and developed what we now call the wwweb (I might add they apparently didn't make any money on it because they never patented any of it). BT, however is still trying to claim ownership and has demanded licensing fees from major ISPs. Anyway, I've gone a long way from Kansas here. All I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't believe in magic wands will sooner or later be made a fool of. Art Richard Corbett - and this is the completion of my contribution on this topic within this thread so over and out.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:29:32 - Dicky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best known creative workstation = provider today although for really flashy creative work the Quantel = Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and a few bank balances as well = at around =A3300,000 a time. Mind you it does take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive = resolution such as to provide 300mb for an A4 image. Yes, the exact same arguments were advanced for existing dedicated DTP and photosetting equipment when Macs arrived with DTP. Fact is, that quality level and 'industrial' investment scale just isn't needed for a large proportion of print work. The crucial factor is the ability of small, cheap prosumer scanners and Photoshop to transfer control back to the designers and photographers. Repro houses are going to get hammered again. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Michael Wilkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Art is ,in my opinion ,spot on ! Drum scanners will have a limited life span,I use one .The scans can be amazingly good,although the tedious system of mounting in oil to get the best and reduce dust etc makes me opt for my flatbed whenever I can. Some of the better Drum scanners are simpler to use with the originals held on the inside of the drum by centrifugal force and you can get a lot of originals in as the drums are quit large. Scanners like the Imacon are up there with the drums in terms of resolution and if you examine how good the "consumer" scanners are now you will see that they are on a charge,manufacturers are selling them like Hi Fi ,one in every home . That means lots of R and D going in to make them better and faster. I doubt that the Drum manufacturers with their very narrow sales potential will be putting in as much effort. You also need to look at what the scans are used for,most go into commercial brochures at maybe 8"x12" max , who needs "drum quality" only to see it squandered on turning it into cmyk dots at maybe 300 to the inch ? Lots of pro photographers have low end scanners because the do the job adequately, for now. Mr Wilkinson PLEASE! Everyone likes to talk futures, it's fun and what's more it costs nothing, and what's even more, anyone can do it. Soothsaying has been with us always and always will be with us. Just remember...soothsayers never make money because they never guess right often enough, but they do spend an inordinate amount of time on the lecture circuit - in other words they become famous for saying a lot and producing very little if anything at all. Actually, while we are at it I will make a soothsay.. "On day, men will walk on Mars". There, that's a bit of daring do if ever there was one but one might be forgiven for asking the following addendum of a question which goes as follows "so what". I was talking about the here and now, the real world of the small business and not the solo operator, which you will be forced to agree, is real world current and related directly to the PL account of many an organisation. Actually, and while we are at it I will make the following hot button statement. Manufacturers hardly ever use single users as marketing test bed'splease note I did not say never. Marketing survey's cover multitudes of users and if you want volume production that means mass consumer markets. Professional users of photographic equipment would hardly generate enough turnover to pay for the manufacturing directors fag's for a year. The real market is the mass market and the mass market control mostly everything on the features front. Most manufacturers with any nous use the odd long term relationship professional for functional test bed activity but as they will have insisted on a non-disclosure clause in any agreement, it would hardly be likely that anyone would know who did what and for whom until long after launch day. Mind you that never stopped those who like to fiddle about and hope for a freebe to suggest that they would be prepared to act as a trial site. In my experience these are the one's to avoid as they usually have far less than a clue on systermatic evaluation and feed back procedures, by which I mean the arty/crafty brigade work at a highly subject level of awareness which makes them entirely unsuited as product testers. Most of those I have come across would, if so enabled, send the manufacture into bankruptcy by insisting on more and more alterations to their operating system. Professional equipment evaluators are worth their weight in gold and are rarer than a true blue diamond. On the other hand it is not uncommon for small organisations to appear inside the sofware industry functioning as support or product enhancement suppliers. I once worked for such an organisation as European dealer manager, and they can and do actually offer special one-off arrangements for those able to fund the development work. The problem with this is that it becomes rather necessary for these software organisation to remain in business, and that is not always what happens.I will speak no more on that little issue, the pain is with me still (:-) A much better arrangement is for the hardware manufacturer to work with an independent software developer who offers them a "special" which they include in their product package and will include some kind of guarantee to the customer on the up-grade front as part of the sales offer. Those organisations who do everything themselves "in house" usually end up by not supporting software development at the same rate as hardware and thus are always behind some competitor or other on on
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Repro houses are going to get hammered again. You swine.. I'll never forgive you for that comment. Actually I have every confidence in the abilities of the man camera manufacturers to produce the totally automated and independent self operational camera before the next decade is out. "What does that mean squire?" I hear you ask... well what it means my son is that the photographers day's will be numbered, except for their legs and arms that istheir brain will be totally redundant as the appropriate software will do the job, faster, more reliably, with greater consistency, better quality, more imaginatively and finally.cheaper. That's it really, that's all I have to say on that subject. Richard - friend to all - Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Ed, Will you be getting a loner to test out Canons new scanner? Dale From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 2/20/2001 10:07:53 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This doesn't stop manufacturers from bypassing ASF entirely like Canon did with their latest scanners. Canon added the infrared channel themselves, and did their own dust-removal software (FARE). The FS4000US looks like an interesting scanner (4000 dpi, motorized film feeding, infrared dust removal, USB/SCSI, $1000, available 2Q 2001). Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
In a message dated 2/21/2001 9:48:20 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Will you be getting a loner to test out Canons new scanner? No, I don't have any contacts at Canon. I won't be able to add support for Canon's new scanners until someone loans me one. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack Michael, Actually Dolby manufactures patented electronics for both the encoding and decoding of audio. That is, in order to use a Dolby process (Noise Reduction, Surround Sound Imaging, etc) the audio source must be encoded using a Dolby process *and* the playback device must decode using a Dolby decoding process. ASF is not like Dolby. ASF (as I understand it) is a one ended technology. There is no ASF software for my camera. My film is not encoded with an ASF process. The ASF software works at the scanning end of the process. All else aside, Dolby *does* make both encoders and decoders available as stand alone products on a professional level. ASF could do the same, but I guess that that might infringe upon their relationships with the scanner manufacturers. Who can fault them? They are in business to make money? Aren't we all? My US $0.02 and then some. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Jack... I thought Dolby was patented circuitry, ie: hardware... You guys sell software.. I think you are missing a big bet (and it has been commented upon previously in this forum) by not making your goodies available to those of us who are serious about filmscanning... I would hold up our esteemed guru, Ed Hamrick, as one who is working fervently to fill the niche you and the scanner manufacturers are leaving wide open... I can buy SilverFast bundled with or buy it separately, why not GEM and ROC, especially if my scanner already supports ICE? I haven't yet tried to contact Minolta support (my Elite works beautifully) but if they are anything like most customer support, it means hours on Ignore and generic answers from support droids, unless I want to scream and finagle to get ahold of someone who really knows something. I am serious about this.. I am not a hobbyist.. I am a pro.. I shoot film, I scan it and manipulate it and burn it on a CD to deliver to my client... there are a lot more like myself... we have a certain amount invested in a pro-sumer scanner and may not be ready to jump at the latest and greatest and untried offerings from Nikon, etc. Anyway, that's my two cent's worth... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm). The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have worked with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I encourage you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our products to you. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
My last comment on this... Yes, I and almost every professional photographer I know are "Lone Rangers" with cameras... That would include almost all of the top shooters.. They may be doing enough volume to afford a couple of assistants (that's how I started) but they still have to deliver THEIR VISION and the "low cost" ($1,000 - 15,000) filmscanner is one of the most important tools on the market for ensuring that image gets created properly and on time.. it's really the new equivalent of the enlarger... any pro shooters who do not master this new technology do so at their own peril, unless they only plan to sell silver based collector's prints ... The industry you refer to is the printing/publishing industry and they will be going through their own revolution as prices come down and quality goes up... The danger in your comments as to these "low end" scanners (Nikon, Minolta, Canon) being for amateur fun is that the fellows from Polaroid, ASF, and the other manufacturers read comments like these and figure that they don't need to bother giving us the truly professional tools we need... that's why Ed Hamrick is beating the pants off Nikon's scanner software... I remember when people spoke of "real" computers as being the ones that needed their own climate controlled special rooms and we mortals had to go through a bevy of computer priests to call upon the digital gods... that was before Apple and IBM came along with what we now know as the Mac and The PC... Same thing will happen with scanning... it's only just begun. Mike M. Dicky wrote: - Original Message -From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:19 AMSubject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. And no doubt you do...but... you are something of a one-man-band, or a solo operator if you like and I have been attempting to discuss professional scanning as a separate business where one man bands hardly exist if ever. You just keep on doing whatever you do and jolly good luck to you my friend, however the economics of high end drum scanners would mitigate against people like you simply because you would be unlikely to be able to finance such a device or obtain a reasonable return on capital.You might, of course, buy a reconditioned machine but, as is the way in such matters, it would probably be quite old and maintenance would cost a penny or two. Modern high end drum scanners are not made for clever tricks or creative people anymore, but for volume production where printing is the ultimate destination and page make-up the main purpose. The drum scanner is required in order to digitise analogue film or flat copy as quickly and as accurately as possible from any size original up to A3, with enlargement as high as 20X, so that high volume page make-up requirements can be satisfied economically. Output can be from A3 pages( two to view) up to eight to view film sets with screen rulings from 150line up to 300 screen i.e A1 film size. Imagesetters and RIP's are generally the processing tools these days and fancy creative work is costed out at a price - a high price - proportional to the labour time used and is carried out on either a desktop computer or a much more sophisticated page make-up workstation incorporating massive computer processing power. Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best known creative workstation provider today although for really flashy creative work the Quantel Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and a few bank balances as well at around 300,000 a time.Mind you it does take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive resolution such as to provide 300mb for an A4 image.Displayed on a 48" high res Japanese monitor one might be forgiven if one had something of a turn when observing the detail in a jewellery catalogue page. If you want photographic quality then that's the business and if you wish massive creative functions it would leave Photoshop standing. Mind you would have to be something of an artist - in creative terms - in order to avail yourself of all it's many facilities. You are confusing the issues related to single self employed photographers with another industry entirely. The book you refer to is of course John Paul Caponigro's "Adobe Photoshop Master Class" and as you have reminded me of something I had forgotten I thank you, because as a future solo operator myself I will almost certainly need to obtain a copy - once I have decided which film scanner to buy. Now I think we had better end this thread as it is of little or no interest to anyone else but ourselves and anyway I believe we may well have worked the theme to death. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I don't think anyone will argue that for now, drum scanners have the edge in the digital scanning arena. I also don't think many would argue that CCD scanners are being successfully used to scan 35mm frames used in the coffee table glossy book market, with considerable success. For those who wish more control over their images and also economy, the newer CCD based scanners are opening up a new market for photographers who wish to provide either manipulated images (do it yourself fixes, etc) or electronic digital images which can then be used on web pages, or sent via electronic means to stock houses or clients. I do, however, see a day when a major breakthough will likely occur and the whole high end marketplace will be knocked on its ears. A perfect example was the video/CG marketplace. Video switchers, and workstations to produce 3d CG were held by companies like Panasonic, Sony and others with their multi hundred thousand dollar units. Then a small marriage took place between a product called the Amiga computer and a company called Newtek, which came out with the "Video Toaster" and bundled it with Lightwave 3d, and that world was changed forever. For under $5000 one had a digital switcher and CG system that rivaled units worth over $100,000. WIthin months I saw trade magazines like "Video Systems" go from 120 pages down to 40 as advertising revenues disappeared, as the biggies ran out of that market, and soon only Newtek ads, and a few other non-linear editing system upstarts were left placing ads. The rest, as they say, is history. Almost all professional video editing and CG development is now done via computers. Hardware switchers are pretty much history, and it took only a few years to happen. Today, major television effects and full CG animations are produced in a room with Macs or average PCs. It only takes one genius company willing to work "outside the box", to come up with a new blackbox, and all bets are off. Whether this will happen in the scanning field and when, I can't say. But I do not believe anyone can with any certainty say drum scanners are here to stay, or that most pro photographers will not be doing their own scanning 5 years from now. Predicting the future is full of sand traps. Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. And no doubt you do...but... you are something of a one-man-band, or a solo operator if you likeand I have been attempting to discuss professional scanning as a separate business where one man bands hardly exist if ever. You just keep on doing whatever you do and jolly good luck to you my friend, however the economics of high end drum scanners would mitigate against people like you simply because you would be unlikely to be able to finance such a device or obtain a reasonable return on capital. You might, of course, buy a reconditioned machine but, as is the way in such matters, it would probably be quite old and maintenance would cost a penny or two. Modern high end drum scanners are not made for clever tricks or creative people anymore, but for volume production where printing is the ultimate destination and page make-up the main purpose. The drum scanner is required in order to digitise analogue film or flat copy as quickly and as accurately as possible from any size original up to A3, with enlargement as high as 20X, so that high volume page make-up requirements can be satisfied economically. Output can be from A3 pages( two to view)up to eight to view film sets with screen rulings from 150line up to 300 screen i.e A1 film size. Imagesetters and RIP's are generally the processing tools these daysand fancy creative work is costed out at a price - a high price - proportional to the labour time used and is carried out on either a desktop computer or a much more sophisticated page make-up workstation incorporating massive computer processing power. Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best known creative workstation providertoday although for really flashy creative work the Quantel Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and a few bank balances as well at around £300,000 a time. Mind you it does take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive resolution such as to provide 300mb for an A4 image. Displayed on a 48" high res Japanese monitor one might be forgiven if one had something of a turn when observing the detail in a jewellery catalogue page. If you want photographic quality then that's the business and if you wish massive creative functions it would leave Photoshop standing. Mind you would have to be something of an artist - in creative terms - in order to avail yourself of all it's many facilities. You are confusing the issues related to single self employed photographers with another industry entirely. The book you refer to is of course John Paul Caponigro's "Adobe Photoshop Master Class" and as you have reminded me of somethingI had forgottenI thank you, because as a future solo operator myself I will almost certainly need toobtain a copy - onceI have decided which film scanner to buy. Now I think we had better end this thread as it is of little or no interest to anyone else but ourselves and anyway I believe we may well have worked the theme to death. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. Butthey do not need to make a profit. If I were still in the business and involved with the CCD scanner manufacturer then I would be looking to get into the professional field ASAP because they are prepared to pay more for the product and in addition they are often prepared to pay for development costs, always provided they get what they want at the end of the day which could well be summed up as maximum productivity at minimum cost and no skill whatsoever. My word, that could be the same as an amateursurprise, surprise. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm really glad you got into this with your reply, because it was exactly what I wanted to say. At one point, I was in conversations with Kodak concerning the possibilities of making some mural sized images from 35mm frames (mainly Kodachrome 64/25). After gritting their teeth at me, they told me of some labs using "wet gates" as are used in making reproductions for 35mm commercial movie releases when they want to avoid as much dirt, dust and scratches in the "prints" (as in film copies from negs, not as in photographic prints). These systems put the film through a pre-cleaning wash and then make their enlargements in a viscose solution between glass, which eliminates surface scratches from being visible, and also surface to air reflection which can soften edges due to the nature of light and optics. When David mentioned that drum scanner operators weren't interested in dust reduction options, I too had similar thoughts to your own. The d.ICE or FARE systems are rather ingenious in their use of infrared information. In spite of what our friend from the developers of ICE, their magic does soften the results, and this is with good reason. If you have even noticed, there is a little red line on most lens barrels, which is off center from the focus line. The reason for this line is to show the differences in focus point between visible white light and infra red, for people who are using infrared films. One makes the focusing using the white light image in the viewfinder, and then moves the lens barrel the amount of the offset this red line provides. The image now looks out of focus in the viewfinder, but is in focus for infrared, which has a different wavelength than white light. Actually, to go one step further, the focal point from red, green and blue light are all different. If you had a very precision, very narrow depth-of-field optics and you were to photograph an image through three different filters, (red, green and blue) you would find each focuses at a slightly different point. This might even explain why the three color separations made in CCD scanners are not always equally sharp. Since, as I understand it, d.ICE uses the infrared image as one component in the final image (even if it is subtractive in nature) the fact that it is likely out of focus probably causes a softening of the whole image, however slight. This is not to "slight" the genius behind the process, but unless there is some way to refocus the infrared channel, (which might cause other problems during the correction process, like make the edges of defects show up more than they wish) I would expect a certain amount of softening in the image when d.ICE was applied. A fine reply Mein Entlich, if I might be so bold. The question of sharpness is highly relevant here because drum scanners apply USM before digitisation because analogue images have the better unlimited gradation characteristics. Remember this boys analogue is still best for con tone quality, although it's time may be limited. Digital scanners, as far as I am aware, do not apply any USM and it is left to either software within the scanner package or within the manipulation software later.That is why the bit depth is so important at the original scanning stage. The drum scanner operator attempts to get it right at the scanning stage with image manipulation coming much later in the production sequence. The amateur does a pretty rough scan and puts it all right through software after scanning, including the USM effects. By the way, when I was in the business the cheapest Crosfield drum scanner weighed in at 98,000 sterling. Bit different now I note. Jolly good thing too if you ask me. which you might just do. Richard Corbett Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I agree with Mike, I'm scanning with a SprintScan 4k because I needed the control over every step of my production schedule. Ironically, the week I purchased it I had just FedEx'ed 150 slides to be written to Photo CD's. The next day, when another large job came in, it pushed me to make the purchase. Before the first CD's had come back from the lab I already had the second job scanned. Larry I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html Mike Moore Dicky wrote: - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... Mike Moore Frank Paris wrote: output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing industry most certainly does. The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals. Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching, of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation. The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4" per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically. He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite image for "the mac" or PC if you will. He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere. The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore fascinated by the process itself. The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... Mike Moore Frank Paris wrote: output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing industry most certainly does. The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals. Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching, of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation. The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4" per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically. He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite image for "the mac" or PC if you will. He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere. The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore fascinated by the process itself. The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money. Each to his own, that's what I say. As an Ex professional and now an amateur in retirement I am looking at the Nikon 4000 and can't wait for all things to be available on but a single piece of equipment. Now all the Nikon people have to do is to produce an output device that sits at the end of the chain Scan-in.PC/Mac.Output to film, and hey presto we have Professional amateurs who will both have fun and make money.always provided they know how to sellbut that's some thing else entirely. Richard Corbett
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I have suggested dust removal to Imacon. Its a no-brainer: if it works, the time saved in retouching is considerable. I simply cannot see any reason not to include it, if it is available. I suspect many Imacon or drum scanner users have not experienced how good a product like ICE really is in practice.If they did, they would want it! As a former LS2000 owner, I thought it was an amazing and hugely useful feature. -- Quentin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: 19 February 2001 04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jack Phipps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:54 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Ah, isn't competition wonderful? In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts?
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Mike-- This is a tough question to answer. It is important that we work with our existing customers (scanner OEMs) because it is important that they include an infra-red channel in their scanners (according to our agreed upon specifications). Without their help, we couldn't have the success we've had to date. The follow-on products are tuned to a particular scanner's specifications (scanner resolution, scan characteristics) and are distributed by the OEMs. We've also been busy integrating Digital ICE on scanners for digital minilabs. So far, Agfa, Gretag, Noritsu and Kodak have included our technology in their product with more on the way. End users are very important to us, and it is our goal to provide the best possible products to them through our OEM relationships. It was very gratifying to hear the testimonials at PMA. People came to our booth with before and after images showing the power of Digital ICE. We had an image on display from a professional photographer (George Barris) of Marilyn Monroe that showed what Digital ICE, Digital ROC and Digital GEM could do. This image was badly damaged and faded. We made a good sized enlargement and the before and after comparisons were impressive. I hope you understand our situation and will continue to consider our products. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands...
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
--- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html I am quite prepared to believe all you say but that is hardly the point. You will, at some future stage, have to chose between taking the picture and reproducing it, simply because the time scale will eventually force you to decide between the two processes. One is creative and the other largely photomechanical and therefore technical rather than creative. No doubt there are photographers who will act as their own publisher and wish to have control over the whole job, well, unless they wish to work 24 hours a day for ever, at some stage they will have to prioritise and perhaps they will decide it is cheaper to put the work out. I must say your paying a lot for a 5X4 scan set. In the uk these sizes are usually called a "min" and where a batch are to be scanned, in my time they were usually priced at between 7-9 sterling each. Richard Corbett I hope you get paid for your scans, it is my impression that many photographers do not. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack: I understand what you are saying... but why can't you make the pitch to the scanner OEM's that their including the IR and ICE as a basic set will allow them to have a minimal price scanner and the availability of GEM and ROC as accessories will only make their product more attractive? Mike M. Jack Phipps wrote: Mike-- This is a tough question to answer. It is important that we work with our existing customers (scanner OEMs) because it is important that they include an infra-red channel in their scanners (according to our agreed upon specifications). Without their help, we couldn't have the success we've had to date. The follow-on products are tuned to a particular scanner's specifications (scanner resolution, scan characteristics) and are distributed by the OEMs. We've also been busy integrating Digital ICE on scanners for digital minilabs. So far, Agfa, Gretag, Noritsu and Kodak have included our technology in their product with more on the way. End users are very important to us, and it is our goal to provide the best possible products to them through our OEM relationships. It was very gratifying to hear the testimonials at PMA. People came to our booth with before and after images showing the power of Digital ICE. We had an image on display from a professional photographer (George Barris) of Marilyn Monroe that showed what Digital ICE, Digital ROC and Digital GEM could do. This image was badly damaged and faded. We made a good sized enlargement and the before and after comparisons were impressive. I hope you understand our situation and will continue to consider our products. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands...
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Several hundred thousand dollar fees might have something to do with it -Original Message- From: Quentin Bargate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I have suggested dust removal to Imacon. Its a no-brainer: if it works, the time saved in retouching is considerable. I simply cannot see any reason not to include it, if it is available. I suspect many Imacon or drum scanner users have not experienced how good a product like ICE really is in practice.If they did, they would want it! As a former LS2000 owner, I thought it was an amazing and hugely useful feature. -- Quentin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: 19 February 2001 04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jack Phipps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:54 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Ah, isn't competition wonderful? In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. I also recognize the handwriting on the wall. I shoot architectural exteriors and interiors. Anyone who creates images (as in food, fashion, products, architecture, nature, etc.) as opposed to snap shooting and taking what you get, all controlled by the limitations of the silver based technology, will have to move to working with their images in Photoshop or some other digital darkroom set... I still have prints made from negs, when the lighting is just right and there is no way I can improve the image with PShop... this is not something I can trust a lab tech to do... the client pays me for my vision... my ability to see their project in a special way, then deliver an image.. Right now, I have to do my PShopping myself... But I look at it as part of the learning curve I have to climb in order to develop a system that integrates my film based cameras and materials with the incredible tools available that allow me to reach the full potential of each image.. By making multiple exposures of the same subject, but placing my exposure at different mid-points (one for shadows, one for mid, one for highlights) them scanning each and superimposing in PShop, I can get ranges of light I could only dream of capturing a couple of years ago. I suggest you read the book that John Paul Caponigro wrote for Adobe press on that and other techniques... It's the logical quantum leap of the zone system... Mike Moore Dicky wrote: --- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html I am quite prepared to believe all you say but that is hardly the point. You will, at some future stage, have to chose between taking the picture and reproducing it, simply because the time scale will eventually force you to decide between the two processes. One is creative and the other largely photomechanical and therefore technical rather than creative. No doubt there are photographers who will act as their own publisher and wish to have control over the whole job, well, unless they wish to work 24 hours a day for ever, at some stage they will have to prioritise and perhaps they will decide it is cheaper to put the work out. I must say your paying a lot for a 5X4 scan set. In the uk these sizes are usually called a "min" and where a batch are to be scanned, in my time they were usually priced at between 7-9 ster
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
P.S. You better believe I get paid for my scans as well as any other time or materials that go into creating an image. Mike Moore Dicky wrote: --- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html I am quite prepared to believe all you say but that is hardly the point. You will, at some future stage, have to chose between taking the picture and reproducing it, simply because the time scale will eventually force you to decide between the two processes. One is creative and the other largely photomechanical and therefore technical rather than creative. No doubt there are photographers who will act as their own publisher and wish to have control over the whole job, well, unless they wish to work 24 hours a day for ever, at some stage they will have to prioritise and perhaps they will decide it is cheaper to put the work out. I must say your paying a lot for a 5X4 scan set. In the uk these sizes are usually called a "min" and where a batch are to be scanned, in my time they were usually priced at between 7-9 sterling each. Richard Corbett I hope you get paid for your scans, it is my impression that many photographers do not. Richard Corbett
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Removing dust from digitized images: This is a quote from another poster (elsewhere - not this list, and I don't have the author since I clipped the quote) regarding the use of PS and the History Brush in PhotoShop: " - - working with a 16-bit file - 1. do your initial color space conversion (if necessary) and an initial levels/ curves adj 2. save a snapshot of current state 3. run dust and scratches (See Filters), checking the preview to make sure most of the debris is caught by the filter 4. create a snapshot of the dust and scratches state, set it to history, and revert to the previous snapshot 5. select the history tool and set it to lighten (if using transparency film) or to darken (if using neg film); if you have a palette set options so that pressure in "on" for size and "off" for opacity' set opacity to 100%; choose a soft brush The history brush should now work to remove most of the debris (setting the tool to "lighten" or "darken" limits the effect to the spots you are aiming at), but some debris will defeat the d/s filter (either it is just too much for the settings you chose or is in an area where the contrast just isn't enough for the "lighten"/ "darken" brush mode to work properly). For these occasional spots I use the rubber stamp tool, reversing the palette options so that opacity is set to "pressure" and size is set to "off." end of quote - In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
The same method is described by Eddie Tapp in Scanner Dust Spotting at http://eddietapp.com/pdfs.html He has some other good reading material there, especially 90% Method of Color Correction NEW 9/00 which uses Dan Margulis's methods but with RGB. Maris - Original Message - From: "Richard N. Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:28 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? | Removing dust from digitized images: | This is a quote from another poster (elsewhere - not this list, and I | don't have the author since I clipped the quote) regarding the use of | PS and the History Brush in PhotoShop: | " - - working with a 16-bit file - | 1. do your initial color space conversion (if necessary) and an initial | levels/ curves adj | 2. save a snapshot of current state | 3. run dust and scratches (See Filters), checking the preview to make | sure most of the | debris is caught by the filter | 4. create a snapshot of the dust and scratches state, set it to history, and | revert to the previous snapshot | 5. select the history tool and set it to lighten (if using transparency | film) or to darken (if using neg film); if you have a palette set options so | that pressure in "on" for size and "off" for opacity' set opacity to 100%; | choose a soft brush | | The history brush should now work to remove most of the debris (setting the | tool to "lighten" or "darken" limits the effect to the spots you are aiming | at), but some debris will defeat the d/s filter (either it is just too much | for the settings you chose or is in an area where the contrast just isn't | enough for the "lighten"/ "darken" brush mode to work properly). For these | occasional spots I use the rubber stamp tool, reversing the palette options | so that opacity is set to "pressure" and size is set to "off." |end of quote - | | | In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features | including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to | the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust | to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized | Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the | entire image. | Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has | shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to | clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. | If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results | are much closer. | I also polled several Imacon d | dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust | removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I | don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA | that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history | palette. Pretty neat. | All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of | sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ | David Hemingway | Polaroid Corporation |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation It all depends on the purpose for which the scanner was purchased. High end drum scanners such as the Hell, Dainippon or Crosfield, remove scratches by mounting the original in a glycerine solution. Dust is removed at the picture editing stage, post scanning. The reason for this system is that scanner productivity is the key to system output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
If you can get a scanner with an IR channel, ICE or Vuescan seem a lot easier to use than that description. Gordon "Richard N. Moyer" wrote: Removing dust from digitized images: This is a quote from another poster (elsewhere - not this list, and I don't have the author since I clipped the quote) regarding the use of PS and the History Brush in PhotoShop: " - - working with a 16-bit file - 1. do your initial color space conversion (if necessary) and an initial levels/ curves adj 2. save a snapshot of current state 3. run dust and scratches (See Filters), checking the preview to make sure most of the debris is caught by the filter 4. create a snapshot of the dust and scratches state, set it to history, and revert to the previous snapshot 5. select the history tool and set it to lighten (if using transparency film) or to darken (if using neg film); if you have a palette set options so that pressure in "on" for size and "off" for opacity' set opacity to 100%; choose a soft brush The history brush should now work to remove most of the debris (setting the tool to "lighten" or "darken" limits the effect to the spots you are aiming at), but some debris will defeat the d/s filter (either it is just too much for the settings you chose or is in an area where the contrast just isn't enough for the "lighten"/ "darken" brush mode to work properly). For these occasional spots I use the rubber stamp tool, reversing the palette options so that opacity is set to "pressure" and size is set to "off." end of quote - In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
My sense was the issue was which technique provided the highest quality. I.e. they wanted every bit of sharpness they paid for. David -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... Mike Moore Frank Paris wrote: output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Isn't ICE (and GEM and ROC?) already bundled with the only scanners that have the IR channel necessary for their use? Maris - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? | I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer | (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying | these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. | that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use | ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a | straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade | ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced | scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex | or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... | | Mike Moore | | Frank Paris wrote: | | output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. | The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes | their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single | product. | This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. | He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore | has little | need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely | to have any | time deadlines to meet. | | Richard Corbett | | | I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a | filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves | time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Nope... It is bundled with some scanners, and will probably be with the NEW Nikons and Minoltas, but my Elite has ICE and IR, but no GEM or ROC Mike Moore IronWorks wrote: Isn't ICE (and GEM and ROC?) already bundled with the only scanners that have the IR channel necessary for their use? Maris - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? | I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer | (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying | these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. | that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use | ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a | straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade | ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced | scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex | or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... | | Mike Moore | | Frank Paris wrote: | | output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. | The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes | their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single | product. | This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. | He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore | has little | need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely | to have any | time deadlines to meet. | | Richard Corbett | | | I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a | filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves | time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Dicky wrote: It all depends on the purpose for which the scanner was purchased. High end drum scanners such as the Hell, Dainippon or Crosfield, remove scratches by mounting the original in a glycerine solution. Dust is removed at the picture editing stage, post scanning. The reason for this system is that scanner productivity is the key to system output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I'm really glad you got into this with your reply, because it was exactly what I wanted to say. At one point, I was in conversations with Kodak concerning the possibilities of making some mural sized images from 35mm frames (mainly Kodachrome 64/25). After gritting their teeth at me, they told me of some labs using "wet gates" as are used in making reproductions for 35mm commercial movie releases when they want to avoid as much dirt, dust and scratches in the "prints" (as in film copies from negs, not as in photographic prints). These systems put the film through a pre-cleaning wash and then make their enlargements in a viscose solution between glass, which eliminates surface scratches from being visible, and also surface to air reflection which can soften edges due to the nature of light and optics. When David mentioned that drum scanner operators weren't interested in dust reduction options, I too had similar thoughts to your own. The d.ICE or FARE systems are rather ingenious in their use of infrared information. In spite of what our friend from the developers of ICE, their magic does soften the results, and this is with good reason. If you have even noticed, there is a little red line on most lens barrels, which is off center from the focus line. The reason for this line is to show the differences in focus point between visible white light and infra red, for people who are using infrared films. One makes the focusing using the white light image in the viewfinder, and then moves the lens barrel the amount of the offset this red line provides. The image now looks out of focus in the viewfinder, but is in focus for infrared, which has a different wavelength than white light. Actually, to go one step further, the focal point from red, green and blue light are all different. If you had a very precision, very narrow depth-of-field optics and you were to photograph an image through three different filters, (red, green and blue) you would find each focuses at a slightly different point. This might even explain why the three color separations made in CCD scanners are not always equally sharp. Since, as I understand it, d.ICE uses the infrared image as one component in the final image (even if it is subtractive in nature) the fact that it is likely out of focus probably causes a softening of the whole image, however slight. This is not to "slight" the genius behind the process, but unless there is some way to refocus the infrared channel, (which might cause other problems during the correction process, like make the edges of defects show up more than they wish) I would expect a certain amount of softening in the image when d.ICE was applied.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jack Phipps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:54 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Ah, isn't competition wonderful? In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Ah, isn't competition wonderful? In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts?
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm). The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have worked with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I encourage you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our products to you. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack... I thought Dolby was patented circuitry, ie: hardware... You guys sell software.. I think you are missing a big bet (and it has been commented upon previously in this forum) by not making your goodies available to those of us who are serious about filmscanning... I would hold up our esteemed guru, Ed Hamrick, as one who is working fervently to fill the niche you and the scanner manufacturers are leaving wide open... I can buy SilverFast bundled with or buy it separately, why not GEM and ROC, especially if my scanner already supports ICE? I haven't yet tried to contact Minolta support (my Elite works beautifully) but if they are anything like most customer support, it means hours on Ignore and generic answers from support droids, unless I want to scream and finagle to get ahold of someone who really knows something. I am serious about this.. I am not a hobbyist.. I am a pro.. I shoot film, I scan it and manipulate it and burn it on a CD to deliver to my client... there are a lot more like myself... we have a certain amount invested in a pro-sumer scanner and may not be ready to jump at the latest and greatest and untried offerings from Nikon, etc. Anyway, that's my two cent's worth... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm). The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have worked with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I encourage you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our products to you. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
At PMA there is only one of the new medium format scanners actually scanning, the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 :) David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Do we know yet when the Nikon 8000 ED will become available? Are there any other new medium format scanners besides the Nikon and the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 that I should be looking at here at PMA? -Anne
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:42:45 -0500 David Freedman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts? Scan quality! The most fundamental issue in the decision, and necessarily a complete unknown at this stage. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
The reduced price of the Polaroid does not include the Sliverfast AI, or Binuscan drivers. Both will be included for an additional $500. I did get a chance to make a scan with the Polaroid 120 today with Insight 5.0 and felt it worked as smoothly as my SS4000. The full size negative scan from a 6x6 will be around 200 megabytes. Their demo machine only had a two gig hard drive so I couldn't save the file, or work with it. Not enough disk space. Larry In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Do we know yet when the Nikon 8000 ED will become available? Are there any other new medium format scanners besides the Nikon and the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 that I should be looking at here at PMA? -Anne
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
The reduced price of the Polaroid does not include the Sliverfast AI, or Binuscan drivers. Both will be included for an additional $500. I did get a chance to make a scan with the Polaroid 120 today with Insight 5.0 and felt it worked as smoothly as my SS4000. The full size negative scan from a 6x6 will be around 200 megabytes. That's a nice big file. But when one doesn't need such a large file, is it better to scan at the optical resolution and rez down, or better to scan at a lower resolution? Todd
