Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
Thanks, Lon. My main reason for the 3650 was wanting to start a whole roll scan and leave it to work, but it sounds like that isn't a real good idea. Will probably go with the Minolta and have a couple hundred $ to put to work somewhere else. Paul - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:19 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) AFAIK, the PF3650 is a PF3600 with ICE, GEM, etc. So it should be similar to mine, with more goodies. I'm happy with the 3600, but have not used a marque brand scanner. Results I get seem quite comparable to results I've seen on the net (snippets of actual scans, not lopped-down resized JPEGS). Strong points seem to be fast scan times (if you use firewire) and the software (I've never had the hangups that other people report, but I keep the computer it is attached to lean and clean). Weak points: if you try to scan an entire roll, you face two problems. One is that a whole lot of that roll flops around outside the scanner for quite a while, collecting dust like flypaper attracts bugs. Another is that there is usually a frame registration problem, so that at some point about 10 to 15 frames in, everything gets shifted. Finally, I've not seen good results from chrome film with lots of dark; a DMax problem. There can be some butt-ugly noise. I tested the DMAX by shooting one roll of Reala and one of K-64 on night-time fireworks; the results made me stop using chrome film. If you confine yourself to scanning 4- to 6-frame strips typically delivered by a lab, the frame shift problems are minimal to non-existant. Documentation hoovers, but as I understand it, that's typicaly of any digital product these days. All in all, I feel absolutely no need to upgrade. My guess is, as long as you get used to a PIE and digital work flow in general, and stick with BW or color neg film, you'd feel the same. If the only reason you would purchase the PIE is because of the whole roll at once feature, I doubt you would use that feature often. And if you want to scan slide film, the Minolta would probably be the better choice. -Lon Paul Sorenson wrote: Lon - How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. Paul
Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
I have the 1800 with the capability to scan a whole roll. It was a big mistake. Unless they figured out how to do it for the 3650, I'd advise against. CW - Original Message - From: Paul Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) Thanks, Lon. My main reason for the 3650 was wanting to start a whole roll scan and leave it to work, but it sounds like that isn't a real good idea. Will probably go with the Minolta and have a couple hundred $ to put to work somewhere else. Paul - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:19 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) AFAIK, the PF3650 is a PF3600 with ICE, GEM, etc. So it should be similar to mine, with more goodies. I'm happy with the 3600, but have not used a marque brand scanner. Results I get seem quite comparable to results I've seen on the net (snippets of actual scans, not lopped-down resized JPEGS). Strong points seem to be fast scan times (if you use firewire) and the software (I've never had the hangups that other people report, but I keep the computer it is attached to lean and clean). Weak points: if you try to scan an entire roll, you face two problems. One is that a whole lot of that roll flops around outside the scanner for quite a while, collecting dust like flypaper attracts bugs. Another is that there is usually a frame registration problem, so that at some point about 10 to 15 frames in, everything gets shifted. Finally, I've not seen good results from chrome film with lots of dark; a DMax problem. There can be some butt-ugly noise. I tested the DMAX by shooting one roll of Reala and one of K-64 on night-time fireworks; the results made me stop using chrome film. If you confine yourself to scanning 4- to 6-frame strips typically delivered by a lab, the frame shift problems are minimal to non-existant. Documentation hoovers, but as I understand it, that's typicaly of any digital product these days. All in all, I feel absolutely no need to upgrade. My guess is, as long as you get used to a PIE and digital work flow in general, and stick with BW or color neg film, you'd feel the same. If the only reason you would purchase the PIE is because of the whole roll at once feature, I doubt you would use that feature often. And if you want to scan slide film, the Minolta would probably be the better choice. -Lon Paul Sorenson wrote: Lon - How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. Paul --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/18/2004
Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
I never use mine. It's just a hassle. CW - Original Message - From: Paul Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) Lon - How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. Paul - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Scanner Test (Revisited) Our scanners are different models; I assume your Cyberview35 (older) is like my Cyberview (older). The reason Cyberview35 was killing shadows and hilights is that the controls in that software simply shouldn't be used, including Autocolor. I use it for raw scans and do the color correction and levels adjustments in an editor. Look at your histograms in CyberviewX, and you'll see that it mangles them, even in 16-bit mode. Scans with older Cyberview don't do that. I've been messing with my scanner a lot longer than you have. All I'm saying, for now, is keep the older Cyberview35 handy. As you get used to scanning, you might at some point prefer the older drive, along with a capable editor. Until then, enjoy CyberviewX. I readily admit that it beats Cyberview if you use the driver to do most adjustments. In fact, it's danged near idiot proof, and I like that about it. If I wanted to put up a web page quickly from a few rolls of film, I'd use it, downsize, and post. -Lon Don Sanderson wrote: Are CyberView35 and CyberView different? CyberView35 was killing shadows AND highlights, the sharpness was terrible too! CyberViewX is doing MUCH better than CyberView35. Maybe there's yet another version I don't know about? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/17/2004
