Thanks, Art. The Minolta and a refurb Nikon LS-30 were
the ones that most jumped out at me.
Dave
At 05:05 PM 4/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
If that's $500 US, I suggest you
consider the Canon FS-2710 or Minolta Dimage Dual II, both under $500
new.
Used or refurb, you might find a Nikon LS-30, which
In a message dated 4/27/2001 5:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does Vuescan support the 1850S?
It's possible that it will work with VueScan. It's an old 1800 dpi
film scanner, and it may work with the standard Microtek scsi
command set. One thing to try is:
1) Delete vuescan.ini
2)
In a message dated 4/28/2001 6:39:14 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the focus
location in vuescan?
It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more
when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700
ppi scans on
my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit,
2700
ppi settings.
As in 64bit is far
JF Mahony wrote:
i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i
shoot
a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi
multy
speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme
highlights.
i like the color of slide film better than
Art wrote:
In fact out steadfast
Kodachrome, which has very good dark keeping properties, fades quite
rapidly in bright light-- I'm speaking of losses of dye density within
minutes under a projector bulb illumination.
Ektachromes, on the other hand fare better under bright lighting, but
Art wrote:
These same companies that immediately offer free
repairs or replacement when a product doesn't meet functionality after
minimal usage?
To their everlasting credit, Acer *does* in fact replace, rather than
repair, defective Scanwits with new ones. At least in the US, as I know
At the risk of being self-contradictory, I'd suggest you toss Acer Scanwit
(2720S and 2740) into the mix for comparisons. It's a bit quirkey and can
occasionally drive you up the wall and across the ceiling, but it also does
an very good job on well-exposed film, particularly slides, and is
Hersch wrote:
I told a power tool company to stop sending me their catalog
after they discontinued selling the proprietary batteries for a drill
immediately after they stopped selling that model. A lot of letters of that
type might help (Of course one lonely one won't do it).
I've written my
Hersch wrote:
I told a power tool company to stop sending me their catalog
after they discontinued selling the proprietary batteries for a drill
immediately after they stopped selling that model. A lot of letters of
that
type might help (Of course one lonely one won't do it).
Would that
I am using Nikonscan 3.0 with my LS2000. I was doubtful as to whether it
would work with Win98 not SE, but it does, apparently flawlessly touch wood
(apart from same bugs/problems others have noted).
So it seems the only reason Nikon require Win98SE is for the firewire
connection.
Ver 3.0
This is exactly what I have discovered I need to do with my LS2000 - set
the focus point closer to the edge of the film. The small depth of field
on the LS2000 is the greatest problem I have found with this scanner, and
the main reason I will be nervous of the LS4000.
Julian
At 22:43
This question is for Ed, and any other program-savy people who want to
answer.
Since dust is always white on negs and always black on slides, while
noise is usually lighter and grain is usually darker than the
surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the cleaning
I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans
better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have
grain in blue skies and, I think, in the black skies in night shots (but
viewable only if I lighten the sky to lighter than pitch black). I've had
to
Wishful thinking - how many customers would a manufacturer lose by not
offering replacement v. repair? How many of us have selected a scanner
based on having replacement v. repair available? Very few IMHO.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
In a message dated 4/28/2001 10:37:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not wanting to reply with an obvious observation, I would have
thought picking the 64bit option simply enabled scanning the IR, and
there for Hersch's improved dust removal. Can you elaborate on what
you found? Is
Ed writes ...
In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I found by
accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi
scans on
my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and
64-bit, 2700
ppi settings.
I looked at the code,
Ed writes ...
In a message dated 4/28/2001 6:39:14 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the
focus
location in vuescan?
It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this
some more
when I get a loaner LS-4000 from
I forgot to mention before that in NikonScan 3 and Siverfast 5 can the user
select the focus spot manually ( move the focus area out against the side
of the film .)
Best regards Mikael Risedal
_
Get Your Private,
Have found no serious problems with 30-year-old
Ektachrome (other than its inherent contrastiness, which sometimes
challenges the DR of my scanner), but the colors *don't* seem to be as
bright as I remember.
But then, it could be your memory that has lost brilliance over the years.
:-) I could
But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual
intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the
LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000.
Tom
I forgot to mention before that in NikonScan 3 and Siverfast 5 can the
user
This suddenly seems so obvious as I experience the problems more, and I
wonder what I'm missing that it isn't more easy to deal with. (?) Example:
red pixels in sky colors, when it isn't sunset, green pixels in skin-tones
How does a computer know that the blue in your picture is from the sky?
Get some sleep, Ed.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
| In a message dated 4/28/2001 10:37:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Not wanting to reply
Tom Scales writes ...
But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of
manual
intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested
in the
LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000.
Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to
You're very welcome. I'm in no hurry to reinstall NS, either 2.5 or 3.0
Hersch
At 03:26 AM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I found by
accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on
my LS-30
Maris wrote:
I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans
better than average but I would not consider it exceptional.
I still have
grain in blue skies and,
My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no
matter in which channel (skin,
All points well taken. My whole point of switching from the Polaroid to the
Nikon, though, was the I wanted the roll film carrier. Now, what I am
reading seems to imply that I have to manually adjust the focus on each
individual frame. Perhaps I am misreading that, and a generic focus at a
Hi Rob
That's it. I try batchscanning rawfiles to make crops (and to save time)
For the moment, I must admit that trying a kind of Vuescan's advanced
workflow makes me late.
I guess I'll try to build an automation from an external dedicated software.
But I'm sure Vuescan is not scriptable.
I'm fond of Supra 400 and use it a lot.
Recently I've also been shooting Provia 100F when
there is enough light. These films are apples
and oranges but Supra 400 is real 'chunky' compared to the
Provia. It is interesting to do a max zoom on a 4000 ppi file from
a 35 mm frame to see what the
From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would seem a user could crop a small rectangle and ask for a
manual focus ... then crop preferentially and scan with automatic
focus disabled(?) I've never been able to verify if this works ...
even while my LS-2000 goes through the motions, the manual focus
I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Vladislav Jurco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris wrote:
I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI.
Vladislav Jurco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no
matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue
channel surprised me
Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36
properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film
adapter?
Possibly Ed could modify vuescan to focus on a specific offset in the frame.
Rob
Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since dust is always white on negs and always black on slides, while
noise is usually lighter and grain is usually darker than the
surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the
cleaning
algorithms?
If you could characterise the noise
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some
more
when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so.
Thanks Ed! I was thinking of all the Nikon scanners, which supposedly
have a capability to focus on a specific point -
Didier wrote:
That's it. I try batchscanning rawfiles to make crops (and to save time)
Hm. I'll have to try batch cropping from raw files. I wouldn't have
thought of it!
Rob
I have posted on the list a couple of times that I find no lack of depth of
field on the Nikon Coolscan IV - LS-40. After seeing several posts that
question the depth of field on the LS-4000, I decided to perform an
experiment with the Coolscan IV and post the results found here:
That would make the buy decision for me, since I do all my scanning with
Vuescan now.
Tom
Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36
properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film
adapter?
Possibly
38 matches
Mail list logo
