RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
At 03:12 PM 12/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: Also, as David mentioned, sometimes the SCSI bus won't recognize the scanner if it's been shut off and I haven't rebooted the machine. In other words, turn on sscanner, boot pc, wait until PC is up and running, shut off scanner and then turn it on again hours later. The PC is a home-built dual PIII 866 running Win2K and the scanner is hooked to an Adaptec 29160N Neither of these is a huge deal, especially the reboot thing, (snip) If you turn your scanner on, go into Device Manager (Win-Key - pause/break), open the SCSI controllers listing, right-click on your SCSI adapter and click Refresh under the General tab, you shouldn't need to restart. Charles
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Rob: What's the consensus amongst other Scan Multi owners as to the scanner as a whole. What are they reporting? Actually, I haven't heard all that much yet. But what I have heard has been all very good. (Stable, user-friendly software, good film holders, small quiet machine, great shadow detail, quick scan times in plugin mode) The only negative comment that comes to mind is the manual focus. One person said that it locks up the Minolta software. He also stated that he didn't *need* the manual focus; just playing around. Minolta is working on that issue now. He also likes to keep cpu running - and to turn scanner off. Occasionally, he'll turn scanner on and have to reboot the cpu. Other than that, everyone seems very happy and excited with their Minolta Scan Multi Pro units thus far. Hopefully my unit will be arriving soon. When it does, I'll make sure and report all of my findings here. Joyfully, -david soderman-
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Actually, David was talking about me when he mentioned the manual focus and reboot problem. If I try to use the manual focus feature in the Minolta software, the software will lock up when clicking ok after setting optimal manual focus (according the black and white bars). I then have to kill the software and restart it but no reboot is necessary. Strangely, point AF works fine. Also, as David mentioned, sometimes the SCSI bus won't recognize the scanner if it's been shut off and I haven't rebooted the machine. In other words, turn on sscanner, boot pc, wait until PC is up and running, shut off scanner and then turn it on again hours later. The PC is a home-built dual PIII 866 running Win2K and the scanner is hooked to an Adaptec 29160N Neither of these is a huge deal, especially the reboot thing, but manual focus would be nice. Overall, I'm very happy with it and I did have time with both the Nikon and Polaroid so I could compare. As far as I'm concerned, ICE is a must have feature which ruled out the Polaroid. Compared to the Nikon, independent of any bugs it has, I'd still probably pick the Minolta since I like the film holders better and I like the smaller size and quiter operation. Paul Wilson -Original Message- From: david/lisa soderman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!! Rob: What's the consensus amongst other Scan Multi owners as to the scanner as a whole. What are they reporting? Actually, I haven't heard all that much yet. But what I have heard has been all very good. (Stable, user-friendly software, good film holders, small quiet machine, great shadow detail, quick scan times in plugin mode) The only negative comment that comes to mind is the manual focus. One person said that it locks up the Minolta software. He also stated that he didn't *need* the manual focus; just playing around. Minolta is working on that issue now. He also likes to keep cpu running - and to turn scanner off. Occasionally, he'll turn scanner on and have to reboot the cpu. Other than that, everyone seems very happy and excited with their Minolta Scan Multi Pro units thus far. Hopefully my unit will be arriving soon. When it does, I'll make sure and report all of my findings here. Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
At 12:39 PM -0600 11/28/01, david/lisa soderman wrote: If there's a way to effectively allocate more RAM to NikonScan (used as a plugin)...I'd be happy as a clam. ;-) David-- The way to give NikonScan more memory as Photoshop plug-in is to (1) allocate lots of memory to Photoshop and (2) close all images before opening NikonScan. If you have a 100MB image (uncompressed size) open in Photoshop, then Photoshop will want to have 300MB of RAM available to work with it. The same 3x ratio applies to any image size. Any less and you'll be hitting the hard disk constantly while working with the image. When you run NikonScan it takes memory from Photoshop's RAM allocation. It needs some RAM just to run and more RAM as temporary storage for the images it creates, and even more RAM if you use ICE. So what I'd do is allocate as much RAM as I possibly can to Photoshop (in your case about 1.2GB of RAM to Photoshop leaving 300MB for the system and other stuff), then run Photoshop alone (no other apps running) and with no images open between scans. Of course you know how to increase Photoshop's RAM allocation, right? Go to the Finder, find the Photoshop application, select it, from the File menu choose Get Info Memory, in the resulting window type 12 into the Peferred Size: box. --Bill -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Bill F. wrote: So what I'd do is allocate as much RAM as I possibly can to Photoshop (in your case about 1.2GB of RAM to Photoshop leaving 300MB for the system and other stuff), then run Photoshop alone (no other apps running) and with no images open between scans. Thanks for your help, Bill; much appreciated. Actually, Photoshop doesn't let me allocate more than 999,999k. It simply will not permit me to type in the 7th digit. (Thus yielding 976.6 megs of Photoshop RAM) Of course you know how to increase Photoshop's RAM allocation, right? Go to the Finder, find the Photoshop application, select it, from the File menu choose Get Info Memory, in the resulting window type 12 into the Peferred Size: box. Yup, I do know how to do that. But I think maybe you meant to type 1,200,000k instead of 120,000k. Try it...and let me know if it works for you. (Can't exceed 6 digits) The Nikon 8000ED produced pretty quick scans on my 400mhz Mac G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM...IF I just stuck with 1 pass 8 bit scans with no ICE, GEM, etc. and IF I never turned on the Color Management. I clocked these times for a 6x6 neg using NikonScan as a plugin. I had maximum RAM allocated to Photoshop. (976.6 megs) Color Management was turned OFF. 2000ppi w/o ICE.1 min. 4000ppi w/o ICE.2 min. 2000ppi w/ ICE.3.5 min. 4000ppi w/ ICE.10 min. Since I've become interested in the new Minolta Scan Multi Pro, I've also become SCAN TIME conscious. I've asked several Minolta Scan Multi Pro owners for actual scan times (as opposed to press releases or the imaging-resource.com review). The peculiar thing that I've noticed here is that PC owners tend to be more willing to provide the scan times than Mac owners. I'm beginning to suspect that because PC's are currently just plain faster than Macs, the PC owners are more inclined to report their speedier scan times. Anyway, I've sent back my Nikon 8000ED in exchange for the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. When it arrives, I'll be happy to serve as a Mac owner who is willing to report all of my findings; both good and bad. Joyfully, -david soderman- P.S.--- I bought my 400mhz G4 just before the end of 2000. At the beginning of 2001, Apple came out with the 800+ mhz machines. I wasn't even looking at hi-rez MF film scanners back then. (That's the way the mop flops!)
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
david/lisa soderman wrote: I've asked several Minolta Scan Multi Pro owners for actual scan times (as opposed to press releases or the imaging-resource.com review). David What's the consensus amongst other Scan Multi owners as to the scanner as a whole. What are they reporting? Rob
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Conclusion: If I will have a slow ,banding , and even slower scanner, if I will get rid of the banding - my first choice is Nikon LS 8000. Also add to the conclusion: a scanner who not can scan a film sharp over the whole area ( if the film is not mounted in a glass frame). Do I get this scanner for free ? Mikael Risedal From: Paul Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!! Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:24:47 -0800 David, Then I've done everything I can. The 8000ED is just plain slow with my Mac. It's ICE/GEM that is slow, not the Nikon. If you turn off GEM especially the scan times are remarkably good in normal mode... I doubt if you compare equals (no ICE in either scan) that you would find anything quicker in any of the scanners you mention. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. You also state: ICE was an important factor for me. The new Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not shipping at the time. Others have claimed to *not* experience the banding problem with the LS8000. and then say: but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. so, in fact the others are right, no? banding is getting blown out of proportion by those who dont own the machine and/or those with vested interests. If you do come across an unusual slide, then check the super fine box and- end of problem.. You will sort out your colour problems soon too, I'm sure. have patience, its a remarkable machine, Paul _ Hämta MSN Explorer kostnadsfritt på http://explorer.msn.se
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
It would make sense that some people would experience worse banding than others if the information I received from several sources is correct. Most scanners use a tri-line CCD sensor chip. In all scanners I know of other than Nikon, this tri-line has filters over each line corresponding to R G and B. Each line of the CCD is calibrated with each scan, so that all the sensor elements are properly adjusted for black and white points, which makes sense since they are probably independent, and you wouldn't want one sensor to be hot or lazy, and create streaky color across your scan. Nikon's lighting system uses no colored filters on the CCD sensors, instead changing the color of the light source (R G and B LED matrixes). Therefore, they make use of all three CCD sensor lines at once. In theory a good design that could triple the capture rate. Only one problem. Nikon apparently decided to only calibrate on of the three CCD lines. Therefore the other two can have sensors which are hotter or lazier than the calibrated one, and so, only one out of each three lines scanned in the default mode have been calibrated, and this would result in banding and pulsed streaking. Now, if one was lucky, and their scanner happened to have a very even CCD, with all three lines having uniform sensors, then the banding would not show up. Nikon's response to the problem for people who have CCDs that are not as well manufactured, is to suggest only using the one scanner line which is calibrated, turning of the other two. This works well, but slows the scan down considerably. Art david soderman wrote: If you have not experienced banding how do you run the LS8000 ? Is it in the fine mode? Which makes scanning slow. I've just been running it in the normal (not fine) mode. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. I have virtual memory turned off. I have maximum memory alloted to photoshop. (Just shy of 1 gig). Don't know if it's possible to increase the amount of memory in NikonScan when used as a plugin. I'm starting to think it isn't. I'm a portrait photographer; not a scenic landscape photographer. I haven't used the scanner all that much, but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. Aside from the hassles of using it, I really can't complain about the actual scan quality itself. I'm quite impressed with the scan results. Joyfully, -david soderman- .
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Thanks David - for the input. Have been looking at the price here on both the SS120 and the LS8000 and now find there is A$1000 difference. So the choice is becoming clearer. Its do I need ICE Cubes. But I do like what my LS2000 will do Rob david soderman wrote: If you have not experienced banding how do you run the LS8000 ? Is it in the fine mode? Which makes scanning slow. I've just been running it in the normal (not fine) mode. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. I have virtual memory turned off. I have maximum memory alloted to photoshop. (Just shy of 1 gig). Don't know if it's possible to increase the amount of memory in NikonScan when used as a plugin. I'm starting to think it isn't. I'm a portrait photographer; not a scenic landscape photographer. I haven't used the scanner all that much, but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. Aside from the hassles of using it, I really can't complain about the actual scan quality itself. I'm quite impressed with the scan results. Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Rob wrote: Have been looking at the price here on both the SS120 and the LS8000 and now find there is A$1000 difference. So the choice is becoming clearer. Its do I need ICE Cubes. But I do like what my LS2000 will do Don't forget about the new Minolta Scan Multi Pro. It also has ICE. So far, I've heard nothing but good reports on the Minolta. Joyfully, -david soderman-
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
David, Then I've done everything I can. The 8000ED is just plain slow with my Mac. It's ICE/GEM that is slow, not the Nikon. If you turn off GEM especially the scan times are remarkably good in normal mode... I doubt if you compare equals (no ICE in either scan) that you would find anything quicker in any of the scanners you mention. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. You also state: ICE was an important factor for me. The new Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not shipping at the time. Others have claimed to *not* experience the banding problem with the LS8000. and then say: but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. so, in fact the others are right, no? banding is getting blown out of proportion by those who dont own the machine and/or those with vested interests. If you do come across an unusual slide, then check the super fine box and- end of problem.. You will sort out your colour problems soon too, I'm sure. have patience, its a remarkable machine, Paul
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
It's ICE/GEM that is slow, not the Nikon. If you turn off GEM especially the scan times are remarkably good in normal mode... I doubt if you compare equals (no ICE in either scan) that you would find anything quicker in any of the scanners you mention. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. AIUI, GEM is or includes a process that applies a sigma filter. Running such a filter over a large pixel-dimensioned image can be very process-cycle-intensive, depending on the filter dimension parameters. It does not seem surprising that it could take quite a while on a 400 mhz machine. There's a brief description of a sigma filter at www6.ewebcity.com/rayet/articles/imageprocess/imageprocess.asp -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Paul Graham wrote: and then say: but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. so, in fact the others are right, no? banding is getting blown out of proportion by those who dont own the machine and/or those with vested interests. If you do come across an unusual slide, then check the super fine box and- end of problem.. You will sort out your colour problems soon too, I'm sure. have patience, its a remarkable machine, Paul This is my predicament - who's correct? And I do like ICE on my LS2000. Also I can't get an answer from the agents nor will a retailer say anything to customers who own them so I can get some feedback. Who is correct?? I want to scan my 6x17 pan landscapes. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
I had similar results with my 4000ED. How to address it depends on how you have color management set up in the preferences dialog. If you have color management ON, then first go into the color management tab in preferences and make sure that the monitor profile it shows is the one you're actually using. If not then change it. Then, if you choose Adobe RGB as the output profile, NikonScan will convert the scan's colors to that color space and tag it with that profile. This is all nice and automatic. However if you choose one of the other color spaces, such as wide gamut, or wide gamut (compensated) NikonScan will CONVERT the colors in the scan to the selected color space but will TAG it with the AdobeRGB profile, which seems brain dead to me! So you have to manually assign the correct profile to the scan, after which its colors should look a lot better. See if any of that helps. --Bill At 9:08 AM -0600 11/27/01, david/lisa soderman wrote: When I do actual scans, the image in the NikonScan preview window actually looks quite good. However, after the scan is done...the image in Photoshop looks horrible. It's WAY oversaturated with WAY too much reds! (I had a similar problem with VueScan and my other scanner which was solved by using the Adobe color space for both VueScan and Photoshop.) Now I'm using the Adobe 1998 color space in NikonScan and Photoshop. I get the horrible image described above. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
I had similar results with my 4000ED. How to address it depends on how you have color management set up in the preferences dialog. If you have color management ON, then first go into the color management tab in preferences and make sure that the monitor profile it shows is the one you're actually using. If not then change it. What about if I have color management *OFF*? I'd like to keep it off if possible, to keep the scan times lower. Since my initial post, I've stumbled on to something. If I select Apple RGB in Photoshop...and Apple RGB in NikonScan, the colors look good. However, if I change Photoshop to Adobe 1998 RGB and keep NikonScan as Apple RGB, colors/saturation are horrible. And if I keep NikonScan at Adobe 1998 RGB and change Photoshop to Adobe 1998RGB, the colors are still horrible. Interesting. So far, the only combination I've found that works is the Apple RGB for both Photoshop and NikonScan. Thanks for your help, Bill. I sure can use it. I am a color management greenhorn. ;-) Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Let me ask why did you buy the Nikon LS8000 if you recognised that it had problems with the banding? I ask - as I was considering both the SS120 and the LS8000. ICE was an important factor for me. The new Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not shipping at the time. Others have claimed to *not* experience the banding problem with the LS8000. Looking back, it was a risk that doesn't seem to be working out very well at this point. I have to admit though that I have *not* experienced any banding so far. I have had an old mounted slide be killer out of focus due to shallow d.o.f.. The main problem is slow speed and horrible color. I suspect, however, that the color problem is a simple matter of figuring out color spaces between NikonScan and Photoshop. If I could solve that, speed would be the only problem. I've got 1.5 gigs of RAM on a G4. If there's a way to effectively allocate more RAM to NikonScan (used as a plugin)...I'd be happy as a clam. ;-) Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
If you turn color management off then you're on your own for adjusting the colors. Now I've been scanning only Kodachromes recently and here's what I did: I turned color management off, went to preferences and set the gamma to match the gamma at which I'm running my screen, then scanned a Kodachrome IT8 target and made a custom profile based on that scan. That was the setup. Now for scanning I simply scan a Kodachrome slide, NikonScan tags it as AdobeRGB (which is dumb), I assign it my custom profile, and the colors look very good. While setting up the scan I adjust the master analog gain (if necessary) to fill the histogram in the Curves control panel, then I check the separate R, G and B histograms and increase the analog gain of any channel that doesn't fill the histogram (this assumes of course that there actually is some pure white somewhere in the slide). OK, that's for slides. If you're scanning negs the story would be different. I haven't spent as much time with negs, but I think what I'd do is turn color management ON, set it to use the wide gamut (compensated) color space, then later in photoshop assign the wide gamut profile to the scan. Good luck, --Bill At 9:45 AM -0600 11/28/01, david/lisa soderman wrote: What about if I have color management *OFF*? -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
ICE was an important factor for me. I haven't had any dust problems with my scanner, and it doesn't have ICE...but I do make sure my film doesn't have any dust on it before putting it in the scanner. The Nikon, because of its LED illumination tends to exaggerate the dust...so it does need ICE, but you may not need it with the SS120.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
David wrote If there's a way to effectively allocate more RAM to NikonScan (used as a plugin)...I'd be happy as a clam. I wonder if Im missing something's here! The only thing you can do is: 1.Allocate more RAM memory to Photoshop if you are using NikonScan as a plugin and have a MAC computer. Give Photoshop at least 800Mb of your 1.5 Gb RAAM memory 2. If you are using NikonScan alone allocate 600Mb RAAM memory of your 1.5 Gb RAAM memory 3 There are no problem to allocate more RAAM memory to a software, if you dont know how to do it : read the help function in your MAC. Mikael Risedal -- From: david/lisa soderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!! Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:39:30 -0600 Let me ask why did you buy the Nikon LS8000 if you recognised that it had problems with the banding? I ask - as I was considering both the SS120 and the LS8000. ICE was an important factor for me. The new Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not shipping at the time. Others have claimed to *not* experience the banding problem with the LS8000. Looking back, it was a risk that doesn't seem to be working out very well at this point. I have to admit though that I have *not* experienced any banding so far. I have had an old mounted slide be killer out of focus due to shallow d.o.f.. The main problem is slow speed and horrible color. I suspect, however, that the color problem is a simple matter of figuring out color spaces between NikonScan and Photoshop. If I could solve that, speed would be the only problem. I've got 1.5 gigs of RAM on a G4. If there's a way to effectively allocate more RAM to NikonScan (used as a plugin)...I'd be happy as a clam. ;-) Joyfully, -david soderman- _ Hämta MSN Explorer kostnadsfritt på http://explorer.msn.se
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
david/lisa soderman wrote: Let me ask why did you buy the Nikon LS8000 if you recognised that it had problems with the banding? I ask - as I was considering both the SS120 and the LS8000. ICE was an important factor for me. The new Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not shipping at the time. Others have claimed to *not* experience the banding problem with the LS8000. Looking back, it was a risk that doesn't seem to be working out very well at this point. I have to admit though that I have *not* experienced any banding so far. If you have not experienced banding how do you run the LS8000 ? Is it in the fine mode? Which makes scanning slow. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
If you have not experienced banding how do you run the LS8000 ? Is it in the fine mode? Which makes scanning slow. I've just been running it in the normal (not fine) mode. At 4000 ppi w/ICE, 8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6 neg takes about 10 minutes. That's on a 400 mhz G4 w/1.5 gigs of RAM. I have virtual memory turned off. I have maximum memory alloted to photoshop. (Just shy of 1 gig). Don't know if it's possible to increase the amount of memory in NikonScan when used as a plugin. I'm starting to think it isn't. I'm a portrait photographer; not a scenic landscape photographer. I haven't used the scanner all that much, but so far the banding hasn't been visible in the normal mode. Aside from the hassles of using it, I really can't complain about the actual scan quality itself. I'm quite impressed with the scan results. Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
Mikael wrote: I wonder if Im missing something's here! The only thing you can do is: 1.Allocate more RAM memory to Photoshop if you are using NikonScan as a plugin and have a MAC computer. Give Photoshop at least 800Mb of your 1.5 Gb RAAM memory Then I've done everything I can. The 8000ED is just plain slow with my Mac. Thanks for your help. Joyfully, -david soderman-
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
If you are using NikonScan 3.1.1 with LS 8000 and MAC. 1. Turn of virtuell memory 2. Allocate at least 600Mb to the software alone. If you using Photoshop plugin, let Photoshop have at least 800Mb memory 3. To allocate more memory = go to Nikonscan folder, select NikonScan with your cursior so its turn aktivated, dont start Nikonscan.Go to Arkiv or (File in Englisch) next right to the Apple and go down to SHOW INFO. Here you can select memory and wright how much memory NikonScan shall have, in your case at least 600Mb Do the same procedure with Photoshop Mikael Risedal From: david/lisa soderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!! Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:08:08 -0600 Well, I've just spent two days trying to figure out how to get my 2 week old Nikon 8000ED to work properly. At this point, I'm just about ready to crate it up, send it back...and go with the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. First off, it is really slow. I prefer VueScan, but can only scan in the very slow superfine mode with that program. That leaves NikonScan 3.1. The scan times are faster with NikonScan, simply because I have the option of *not* using the superfine mode. (of course, we all know what can happen if we do that; banding). Even so, NikonScan seems clunky and slow...like it needs more memory. So...I tried to allocate more memory to NikonScan. There are no instructions on how to do this. On the read me section of the NikonScan cd, it mentions that there is info discussing limitations on allocating memory to NikonScan which can be found inside the scanner box. Nothing of the sort inside the box...or anywhere else. When I do actual scans, the image in the NikonScan preview window actually looks quite good. However, after the scan is done...the image in Photoshop looks horrible. It's WAY oversaturated with WAY too much reds! (I had a similar problem with VueScan and my other scanner which was solved by using the Adobe color space for both VueScan and Photoshop.) Now I'm using the Adobe 1998 color space in NikonScan and Photoshop. I get the horrible image described above. Next step: call Nikon Tech support. Wait for a REALLY long time. Get disconnected. Call back; wait for another REALLY long time. Finally get a girl who really seems to be impersonating tech support. (She was very pleasant, but I actually think she's a secretary who happened to be walking by as their phone was ringing in tech support) ;-) I could go on here, but let's just put it this way...she said that turning off NikonScan CMS (color management) is for when you want to work with black and white photography!!! In short...I'm at the end of an electronic culdusac here. Can anyone out there help me with my memory and color problems? I have a 400mhz Mac G4 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Thanks in advance! Joyfully, -david soderman- _ Hämta MSN Explorer kostnadsfritt på http://explorer.msn.se
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED nightmares!!!
david/lisa soderman wrote: Well, I've just spent two days trying to figure out how to get my 2 week old Nikon 8000ED to work properly. At this point, I'm just about ready to crate it up, send it back...and go with the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. Let me ask why did you buy the Nikon LS8000 if you recognised that it had problems with the banding? I ask - as I was considering both the SS120 and the LS8000. Rob
