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
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, 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