They are products made by Applied Science Fiction in addition to Digital
ICE, which removes the dust and scratches. Their website at
http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/ICE3/overview.shtml
describes both products.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Norman Quinn
To: [EMAIL
The
Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality
from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor!
Actual pixel clips are certainly usable for some criteria.
Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as
great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the
one with greatest longevity.
That's
I couldn't be happier with my SS4000 and I can't imagine that any of the
other scanners in the same price range as competition for the SS4000 output
( from slides at least ). I've been using mine for over a year with
absolutely no problems. It put me in the business of selling fine art prints
My SS4000 came with a SCSI card for my PC.
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Landrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate
At 10:29 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
through a veil of haze, while the
Austin wrote:
The image data only spans a small part of the 16 bit
range. Increasing exposure time only incureases DMax.
And we're talking about the Leaf scanner here, right? I'd think that
increasing exposure would also burn out highlight detail. It wouldn't
eliminate DMin, just extend it
Maris wrote:
I would venture to suggest that a 3-minute exposure using the same exposure
settings but with today's equipment will result in the same detail.
Having known a couple of artists who did this (one with an extremely
stopped-down lens, the other with night photography), I'd suggest
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
don't see the astonishing difference you're
As I see it (and I think many of us do), the differences between chemical
and digital darkrooms are largely the differences one should expect from one
medium to another. The biggest differences involve working methods. While
there are in fact differences in some of the outcome (e.g. prints),
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there are many
valid reasons to discuss film scanning at all. And in many applications, digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is paramount
(all other things being equal) to me. And so
on 6/19/01 11:28 AM, John C. Jernigan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly, this is somewhat OT for this list. Can anyone direct me (and
others
who are interested in this issue) to another more pertinent list?
Try DigitalSilver, where this is exactly on-topic (and I should know cos I'm
the
I am sure the Nikon is substantially faster than the Leaf, since the Leaf
is
a three pass scanner, and the Nikon is one pass, but since the Leaf can do
BW in one pass, and has a ND filter for scanning BW, I believe it easily
holds its own with any other scanner for BW work.
Why would you
Peter wrote:
I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum.
Yeah, but he gets to play with *all* of them! That would make me happy, too,
if I had a tenth the energy that Ed seems to have. ;-)
All seriousness aside, *most* of us are happy (or stuck), but we see room
for
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:08:30 -0400 Norman Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry, but for those without this tool what is GEM and ROC?
GEM is trickery which attempts to reduce apparent grain effects in scans,
ROC is trickery aimed at restoring original colour from degraded
originals.
The
Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
Yes. Isn't it obvious?
Well, no. You can tell that the web image has more shadow detail,
certainly, but NOT the scan!
My best guess would be that the lack of shadow detail in the Leafscan
If I were playing basketball, it would be an option ;-)
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
| Maris wrote:
| I would venture to
The
Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
Yes. Isn't it obvious?
I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality
from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor!
I don't think anyone is trying
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote:
Atlthough this isn't what Tony's writing about, I'm going to kidnap his
thoughts on this to revisit what I said a few days ago, re flatbed scans vs.
filmscans, vis a vis resolution and detail. A year ago I had the priveledge
and oportunity to
rafeb wrote:
This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
Where I work they're refered to as CIS scanners
(Contact Image Sensor.)
I don't believe this is the same thing.
As I understand it, a CIS is a different sensor
What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I
have
USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good
SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost.
You over shot. I believe you can get it for $50 or less. Some SS4000 comes
with the card.
I did a bit of google-searching on this topic and
came up with some interesting hits.
Unfortunately I can't cut/paste URLs into this
email program, but the search phrase was
scanner LED illumination.
Some interesting points...
1. A white paper from Kodak describes a scheme with
LEDs of
I have a similar problem with my Sprintscan when I scan BW negs. I
sometimes get a bleed from dark area into light. I'd be interested in
what others have to say.
STEPHENJENNINGS
P h o t o g r a p h e r
Cambridge, MA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Al Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Hi all,
Has anyone experienced problems using (relatively) new series of FUJI
Superia negatives incorporating 4th color layer - 100/200/400 ASA speed? I
had decent results using FS2710/Canoscan with older FUJI films, even with
some no-name local products, however, with new films results seem
Rafe wrote:
There is a difference here between the Nikon
scanners (at least the latest generation) and
most others -- specifically, the Nikons
use a 3-line *monochrome* CCD sensor, and
tri-color (RGB) LEDs
Austin Franklin wrote:
Huh? How do they get even illumination, muchless
Norman Quinn wrote:
I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to a
Nikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to be
sharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention
GEM and
ROC.
At 10:28 AM 6/19/01 -0500, John C. Jernigan wrote:
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there
are many
valid reasons to discuss film scanning at all. And in many applications,
digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is
At 07:33 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Moreno Polloni wrote:
My best guess would be that the lack of shadow detail in the Leafscan was
due to an out-of-level scanner. I hear that's a common problem (table sag)
with 85 pound scanners.
LOL! Good one, Moreno.
FWIW, the 8000 ED makes my old SprintScan look
At 12:38 PM 6/19/01 +0800, youheng wrote:
[rafe b:]
There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using
wet chemistry) to get around the print longevity issue.
[youheng]
Is Fujix Pictrography 4000 considered a hybrid? It uses photographic
Okay, I think I've hit on the image quality I'm looking for, but I don't
have the words to express it--so maybe someone here can help.
Do you know the different look between something shot on film vs. videotape?
I remember as a kid refusing to watch any television show that was shot on
videotape
At 08:08 PM 6/18/01 -0700, Doug wrote:
What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have
USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good
SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost.
Nowhere near that amount. More like $30. If your
4. Ability to control intensity of each color
illuminant separately -- eg., the Analog Gain
control in NikonScan.
The Leaf does that by using three scans, and controlling each scan...
What I don't yet understand is how the illuminant
is evenly distributed over the film width, or how
the
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Dan Honemann wrote:
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
don't see the astonishing difference
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:54:32 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
A year ago I had the priveledge
and oportunity to flatbed-scan a series of pictures (prints) made 130
years ago with cherry-wood cameras and very slow anastigmat lenses on
(probably) glass wet-plates, printed on a
I am sure the Nikon is substantially faster than the Leaf,
since the Leaf
is
a three pass scanner, and the Nikon is one pass, but since the
Leaf can do
BW in one pass, and has a ND filter for scanning BW, I
believe it easily
holds its own with any other scanner for BW work.
Why
At 09:11 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
don't see the astonishing difference you're talking about,
even when these two images are inspected under high magnification
in Photoshop.
You won't see anything from high
Yes, Austin, that is how the Nikons work. They have 4 sets of LEDs, R,
G, B and IR. It is, in part, why 1) Nikons tend to exaggerate the dust
and dirt, and 2) why they have some problems with DOF on the edges due
to the low LUX intensity of the LEDs, leading to the need for a very
wide
At 08:28 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
Okay, I think I've hit on the image quality I'm looking for, but I don't
have the words to express it--so maybe someone here can help.
snip
In any event, I'm struggling to find an affordable way to get prints that
look like _that_, the way my
At 01:19 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Art wrote:
rafeb wrote:
This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
Where I work they're refered to as CIS scanners
(Contact Image Sensor.)
I don't believe this is the same thing.
As I
Just for clarification. You are speaking of the Minolta Dimage Dual,
which is rated at 2450 or so DPI, not the Dual II, which is rated at
2820... is that correct?
Art
Shough, Dean wrote:
This is a very small snippet of a scan taken with my Minolta Scan Dual
from
the 1951
Hi Ed
I have a raw scan file but its 74 meg at 2700 resolution!
I can reduce the res to give a smaller file. Is that OK?
Thanks
John Bradbury
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Skin tones
Rob Geraghty wrote:
I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount
lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken
with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than
photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the
autofocus is spot
on 6/19/01 5:30 PM, rafeb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
of enlargement) with 35 mm film. Sure, you can blow it
up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.
Which is
[rafe b:]
I'm afraid I don't understand. Doesn't the proper exposure
depend on the image under consideration?
[Austin]
No. More so the film. The image data only spans a small part
of the 16 bit
range. Increasing exposure time only increases DMax.
Well, this again is contrary to
Just hang around a while and you'll get plenty of this feedback.
However, happiness is a difficult emotion for film scanner users.
The desires and expectations, as the person becomes more educated, is
difficult to maintain.
There are quite a few scanner owners on this list who have scanners
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:02:45 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
That is what MTFs (Modulation Transfer Function) are for. The MTF for
optical systems can be either computed (see Canon's EF Lens Work) or
measured.
Yes I know this, it is what I was referring to without calling
Rafe B wrote:
The differences are 100% attributable to scanner settings, and
entirely fixable, with either scanner, at scan-time.
The Nikon image can be made to look like the Leaf image (in
Photoshop, after the scan) but not vice-versa, since shadow
detail has been lost in the Leaf
I have to agree with Dan that the Leaf 45 scan is quite visibly different
than the Nikon (I'm using a HItachi 19 shadow-mask monitor, BTW), and on
first look does seem superior to Nikon's. The question is whether such
differences are meaningful at these resolutions, and whether one scan can
Okay, I think I've hit on the image quality I'm looking for, but I don't
have the words to express it--so maybe someone here can help.
Do you know the different look between something shot on film vs. videotape?
Hi Dan
I seem to remember watching American Football for the first time in the
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you e-mail me the raw scan file for this image,
I'll look into whether there's something I can do in VueScan
to make this improved contrast be the default (I may have
something incorrect in the default contrast that's used
when generic film
I've been thinking about the Nikon 4000ED too, so it was
interesting for me
to see the comparison.
I have to agree with Rafe that it really wasn't a very good comparison.
Don't base your decision on a couple of JPEG 72PPI web images!
Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
of enlargement) with 35 mm film. Sure, you can blow it
up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.
Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras,
and
Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is
important, like
dpi,
I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
read here, sounds like 3,000 dpi.
density range,
Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most
important
[rafe b:]
The Leaf also works around this issue by
doing three scans -- presumably using a different
filter with each pass. But the Leaf can't
control illuminant intensity or spectral content
the way that the Nikon scanners do.
[Austin:]
I don't quite know what you mean by that... How
[rafe b:]
Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
of enlargement) with 35 mm film. Sure, you can blow it
up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.
Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras,
At 05:28 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
[rafe b:]
On the film scanners I've used, when exposure needs to
be messed with at all, it's always a result of an
over- or underexposed image.
Not with the Leaf. They even go out of their way to say to scan at minimum
exposure of 16ms for everything
At 06:35 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
I take it you're the proud owner of an LS 4000?
No, even better. 8000.
rafe b.
At 11:41 PM 6/19/01 +0100, Richard wrote:
Open the Leafscan image in PS and see if you can get approximately close to
the Nikon scan. I couldn't
Boy, I must be missing something here.
You're on the wrong track. You can't fix the Leaf
image; it's already had its shadow tones compressed
into
Rafe,
You got yours? Mine is still backordered... bummer.
Lawrence
http://www.lwsphoto.com
No, even better. 8000.
rafe b.
I am planning on taking pictures at a high school indoor sporting event with
available as well as flash lighting. I have a Canon FS 2710 scanner. I would
prefer to use slide film. I have had mixed results with previous attempts
using Fugi and Kodak commercial 400 and 800 print films.(very
I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most of
my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with my choice.
:)
Dan:
I thought I recognized your name from the Leica list. I also am a Leica
shooter. With your budget, I would get a Nikon LS4000 or LS8000 (MF
capability). I am told that there is a review of film scanners in the
current Popular Photography magazine. There are recent reviews of the Nikon
It could well be that the LEDs are far enough from
the focal plane so that they appear diffuse. That's
purely a guess on my part.
That makes sense. LEDs typically have a lense of some kind... Do they have
a diffuser over the light source that you know of? I still have my druthers
about
This quality you're looking for comes from perfect practice
in every step of the image-taking and image-making process.
It involves far more than the perfect film scanner.
Understood. But perfect practice in every step of the process means
eliminating any potential weak links in the chain.
I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice.
I once met a woman about my age (40) who has shot with only one camera since
high school (and she's been a professional photographer since then): an old
Wista 8x10 with a single lens. That's it. She only shoots bw film and
I seem to remember watching American Football for the first time in the UK
some time back and thinking how fantastic the image quality was. I then
found out that its shot on film. Is this still the case?
It's funny, that. The games themselves are shot on videotape, but the shows
that
Doug,
Thanks for your thoughts (and useful links) on scanners.
I like your work; in particular, this one:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=137114
I'm prepared for the learning curve and dazzled already. Mostly I'm
impressed with the intelligent folks and posts found on this list.
Rafe,
You also might suggest the [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is an
altogether different group from the Leben group, and Bob Meyer's site at
http://www.meyerweb.net/epson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001
68 matches
Mail list logo
