I'm looking over my Nikon lens chart here, which is admittedly a bit
outdated, but other than some very wide lenses (13mm, 15mm, 18mm, 20mm
and a fast 24mm) one 200mm, one 300 mm ED and one 105mm micro, no fixed
focus Nikon lens has more than single digit number of elements.
However, almost
Lynn Allen wrote:
I don't think Kodak is strong enough (or willing) to do so--this might be a
test of my prognosticatory powers...if it happens, someone can tell me I
told you so. :-)
Someone I spoke to today suggested Fuji might be interested in the
Polaroid name, as it is quite a
I think you are correct that Minolta will be releasing a new 35mm
scanner soon. The Elite is being heavily discounted, and a 4000 dpi
version would make sense.
Art
Shough, Dean wrote:
I expect (hope?) that
either Polaroid or Minolta will come out with a scanner that does what I
want in
rafeb wrote:
But curiously, our man from Polaroid is in ICE-denial,
saying that his (perceived) clientele doesn't value ICE.
Nor did I, until I had a chance to work with it.
As I recall, David was in similar denial when some
of us informed him (way, way back) that we'd really
like
Tony Sleep wrote:
Are you sure you are setting the black point correctly? Virtually all
scanners degrade to green/blue mush at the dark end, but the more
competent ones do so at luminance values which are below those found in
the shadows. If so, you will be able to clip the black point
Jeffrey Goggin wrote:
Other than the Minolta Multi, the other MF scanners seem to work
similarly to a flatbed, in the sense that regardless of the size of the
original, the resolution of the CCD remains fixed (in this case at 4000
dpi.)
This may be true of the current Nikon and
I would like to contact any Canon FS2710 users with Vuescan experience. I
installed Vuescan because of the good reports but have always experienced
scans with the default sttings to have very low contrast, with the values in
levels bunched to the left. This is for both slides and negatives, and
Hello,
according to the Italian CNN site
http://www.cnnitalia.it/2001/ECONOMIA/07/11/polaroid/index.html, Polaroid is facing a
major financial problem and there is rumor that 25 percent of employee will have to
leave their job soon.
Whow!
Cheers; Andrea
--
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
I'm looking over my Nikon lens chart here, which is admittedly a bit
outdated, but other than some very wide lenses (13mm, 15mm, 18mm, 20mm
and a fast 24mm) one 200mm, one 300 mm ED and one 105mm micro, no fixed
focus Nikon lens has more than
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Someone has angered the Scanner Gods. I think it was Art. ;-)
Jeez, I thought Art *was* the Scanner God.
rafe b.
Yes, so don't anger me! ;-)
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
The music CDs were just one part of the examples. Some of the later music
CD's are MP3 discs that are standard ISO data discs. I don't think I have
ever used a RW for an Audio CD. Also the examples of saving data to transfer
from one computer to another is again
Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
and just basically use the same optics for all the film
Lynn Allen wrote:
Sorry about that double post, everyone. I *hate* my Mail service!!! ;-)
Didn't you just pretty much just make it a triple post? ;-)
And yes, I'm editing the rest out so that it won't be a quad.
Art
I can see where pros might feel that they
can live without ICE, particularly if film
processing is kept under very strict control.
For me, at least until quite recently (knock
wood) that was darn-near impossible.
I have been very impressed with ICE, in just
the few weeks that I've had to
David,
Thank you for your offer to help. it shut off one more time. It's now on
it's way back to BH for a return. I ended up going with the Nikon after
kicking the tires on both machines. I found that the marginal (if any)
gains in shadow detail were not worth the extra time I had to spend
Maris wrote:
Your first paragraph refers to CD-RWs, but your second says CD-Rs. Have
you used both or just the Kodak CD-Rs?
Didn't mean to be ambiguous, but I was, wasn't I? To clarify things,
workflow-wise, I originally use CD-RW for backups (Verbatim and Sony,
mostly). Once all the
Art wrote (re Kodak Gold CD-Rs):
That's because they've all been brought up to Canada to be sold. I've
been seeing them everywhere, and they sell her[e] for about $1 per disk/w
Jewel Case (that's about $.65 US)
I was getting mine out of Olympia, WA, but for nearly twice that price.
Maybe
Gandy Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to contact any Canon FS2710 users with Vuescan experience. I
installed Vuescan because of the good reports but have always experienced
scans with the default sttings to have very low contrast, with the values
in
levels bunched to the left.
This may be true of the current Nikon and Polaroid models but
many of the
other film scanners that handle MF film (Leafscan, etc.) use
the different
lenses for different formats ... right?
The Leaf uses one lense, a 75mm Rodenstock flat field copy lense.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Rob: I once had a roll with about 3 frames that looked like
they were full of flyspecks. I ran it through Vuescan to
see if it would remove the dust. It wasn't dust. It was
in the emulsion, probably done in the devolempent process.
That's what
Art wrote:
Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm
frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in
theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about
4800 x 7200 ppi, optically.
Not unsurprisingly, I thought of the same
I wanted to seek the input of list participants into the question of
minimizing grain and noise in 35mm scans. While it varies according to
subject matter, predominant color, film type and speed, all scans seem to
have some degree of grain / noise not found in the prints. I've used both
Vuescan's
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
content, and like dust, they would be removed by dICE. More likely, junk
for other films that ended up in the chemistry and deposited on your
film.
Thanks, Art. I'm going to experiment further - fortunately I kept the raw
scan. :) It may have been an
FWIW I just tried printing a model's comp card on Epson Semi-gloss paper.
I'm using an Epson 1160 with OEM inks. I'd have to say it's the best result
I think I've seen out of the 1160 so far.
Obscanning: All but one of the photos were scanned on my LS30. The odd one
out was scanned on an Epson
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:22:34 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, at least to me, it's hard to imagine needing (or for that matter
wanting) a FOURTEEN element lense that isn't a zoom! It may not be a
zoom, but it's got to do something else...
Maybe have the flattest
A friend who shoots 5x4 and 10x8 just showed me some prints made from
scans done using the Microtek Scanmaker 8700 flatbed. I have to say they
were excellent.
Specs at http://www.microtekusa.com/item.zhtml?pid=64cid=3
This thing uses a tray for film up to 10x8. However I haven't been able to
At 18:10 12-07-01 +, you wrote:
Steve wrote:
Most of the information I have seenis via http://www.cdmediaworld.com and
links from there. My own personal experience is that CD-RW is more
temperamental.
Out of 20 Kodak Gold CD-Rs distributed, I've had no reports of problems.
It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
and just basically use the same optics for all the film formats.
I seem to be missing
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:30:31 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
OTOH, if you're an Aries, my week has gone sorta like that (last week
more than this week, and the month before was even worse!).
Uh-oh - please not here! But as a final nail in this OT coffin, I'll just
say that I am
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:44 +0100 (BST) Tony Sleep
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Are you sure you are setting the black point correctly? Virtually all
scanners degrade to green/blue mush at the dark end, but the more
competent ones do so at luminance values which are below those found in
the
I would like to contact any Canon FS2710 users with Vuescan experience. I
installed Vuescan because of the good reports but have always experienced
scans with the default sttings to have very low contrast, with the values in
levels bunched to the left. This is for both slides and negatives,
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Art wrote:
Maybe what you are seeing isn't dust?
I can't imagine what else is could be. They are black spots, and they sure
as heck look like dust. I can't imagine they could be in the image itself,
because they are in precise focus and nothing in the image is
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm
frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in
theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about
4800 x 7200 ppi,
The low contrast is normal and IMHO good as it indicates that neither the
highlights nor the shadows are being clipped - you can easily deal with that
in your graphics program.
To deal with the level bunching, try adjusting the gamma setting in Vuescan
(it does NOT have to match your monitor
A small comparison between Imacon Photo 3200 ppi , Polaroid SS120 4000
ppi, and Nikon LS4000 at 4000 ppi.
Test slide 24 x 36 by Leitz was used as reference. ( glass mounted)
Test slide 24 x36 un mounted.
1. Imacon at 3200 ppi was a lot sharper and show significant more details
than
I use Vuescan almost exclusively on a Nikon LS-30.
Depending on the image, I first use Vuescan's grain reduction if it doesn't
damage the sharpness too much.
Thereafter, in Photoshop or Photopaint I generally convert to LAB, then use
the median filter rather than Gaussian blur on the A and B
Good points. Also we should all bare in mind that competition tends to keep prices
competitive and make (hopefully) technical support more attentive to customer issues.
I hope, and believe, the current economic situation will
blow over and that Polaroid, as well as Compaq and Big Blue, will
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: CD from Scanner
Steve Greenbank wrote:
The music CDs were just one part of the examples. Some of the later
music
CD's are MP3 discs
It just strikes me as weird that nobody makes a scanner for doing
35mm/MF contacts a roll at a time. A purpose-built low-spec unit for
$300US-ish would sell well, I think. 3-400ppi would be plenty.
I have been using an Epson 836XL with transparency adapter for making
contact sheets for a
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Mikael Risedal wrote:
So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear from Rafe and
Lawrence what they have discovered about
sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film.
There's no question in my mind that depth of field
(or is
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow
a 35mm
frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could,
in
theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame
at about
4800 x 7200 ppi,
The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path
correct? The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive
scanners. Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is
physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the
Imacon, cost.
Dave
-
There seems to be some difference in the experience of people using
Nikon scanner software. Some people say it is fine. Others complain
bitterly about its bugginess with out much more in the way of
additional information. Since Nikon provides two software packages,
one for the Mac and one
David
We did the test with USM of and on , on all scanners, we also set USM in
photoshop, increased contrast etc. etc.
The test shows that Imacon realy are superior to the 2 other scanner in
resolution. (How can you get a 6 x 6 in a LS4000 ? ) or was it LS 8000 you
have in your test?
Mikael
Quickpoint mounts available from Reel 3-D really work for the 35mm
curved slide problem. Glassless, very flat, and nearly full frame.
The mounts have strips of sticky adhesive top and bottom, you mount
the slide with a slight bend in the mount, then it pulls flat. Highly
recommended.
LS8000
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Risedal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
David
We did the test with USM of and on , on all scanners, we also
set USM in
I don't know for sure the optical effect of the mirrors. I guess I should
ask someone.
David
-Original Message-
From: Dave King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
The
I have read that NikonTech has told someone they are the only one having
problems. This may be just a rumor, or not, so here is my short story.
NikonScan 3.1 crashes regularly when saving a scan. Usually I can get at
least one scan saved, but then trying to
save a second scan sometimes works,
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:12:14 +0100 Gandy Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I would like to contact any Canon FS2710 users with Vuescan experience.
I
installed Vuescan because of the good reports but have always
experienced
scans with the default sttings to have very low contrast, with
1. Imacon at 3200 ppi was a lot sharper and show significant more details
than the Nikon and Polaroid scanner does.
Yep! However, you must ensure that the Unsharp mask feature is switched to
OFF AND the Unsharp ask slider is set to MINUS 60 or it will still
apply sharpening. So I was
Hi,
I have posted a few times before and received very helpful responses. So, I
thought I would ask a real basic question...
Background:
I am just starting out with both photography and scanning. I am on a very
limited budget, so I am using my wife's Canon EOS Rebel 2000 and an Acer
Scanwit
I did this test myself with a 6x6 transparency. To do a fair test it is
important to have USM of on all scanners. With the Imacon that it not so
straight forward. When you uncheck the USM box it is not really off. When
you set the slider to zero it is not really off. I specifically
Im no expert on Vuescan but try this settings on negative scanning
Select your color space Adobe RGB Color Match etc
Set gamma lower1.4 or 1.6
Image brightness 0.8 0.9 instead of 1
This settings gives me better results, more contrast etc
Increase contrast later on in photoshop about
Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film holders. I am
not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature.
Have no doubts about it. Not only is it a feature, it works!
Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com
Darrell,
Here is another hit or miss to try. I am running almost the same system
(hardware and software) except I have a 1GHz Athlon (and a cheapo scanner.)
I recently upgraded from 512Mb ram to 1Gb ram and started experiencing the
same types of problems. I exchanges the 512Mb module several
At 11:59 AM 7/13/01 -0700, Winsor Crosby wrote:
There seems to be some difference in the experience of people using
Nikon scanner software. Some people say it is fine. Others complain
bitterly about its bugginess with out much more in the way of
additional information. Since Nikon provides
At 10:26 AM 7/13/01 -0400, Norm Unsworth wrote:
From a practical, rather than a causative approach, how have folks dealt
with this issue, both in terms of minimizing apparent grain from scans and
in improving (ie: reducing) the appearance of 'grain' in Photoshop?
I deal with it by shooting
1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or is
this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits?
Why not use outdated film? If the film's been stored properly, it's
usually good for several months (and sometimes even several years!) past
its expiration
At 02:20 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote:
Questions: (from a scanning perspective)
1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or is
this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits?
I think your approach is fine. The only drawback is that if you're like
me,
Norman Unsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vuescan's ability to manually focus (actually, slightly out of focus) and
grain reduction to reduce what I'm calling grain but obviously there are
drawbacks in the form of reduction of sharpness, in either of these
solutions.
Out of interest, have you
Winsor Crosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
additional information. Since Nikon provides two software packages,
one for the Mac and one for Windows, it might be useful to know the
operating systems of those people who offer their experiences one way
of the other.
Nikonscan 3.1 seems to work fine
Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am just starting out with both photography and scanning. I am on a very
limited budget, so I am using my wife's Canon EOS Rebel 2000 and an Acer
Scanwit 2720s.
[snip]
1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or
is
this a
- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Getting started question
[snipped]
| 1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or
is
|
Hi James!
Yes, there is a problem with Kodachrome that we are working on. You should
really try some of your own images. We are not absolutely sure why some
Kodachromes are affected while others are not. It is usually the very dense
parts of the image. I'll tell you what I do when I scan
Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film
holders. I am
not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature.
Have no doubts about it. Not only is it a feature, it works!
Would you please describe in detail how you determined it works?
Since you're using W2K, what does the Event Viewer say? In my experience
with Win NT/2K, many repeatable errors can be diagnosed with info from the
event viewer logs, and frequently are the result of driver conflicts, the
most infamous being 3rd party manufacturer video drivers (video drivers
I've been on a dealer's waiting list for a Coolscan 8000 since it was first
announced. Still no scanner and now the dealer won't even venture a guess as
to when I might get one. Very frustrating. Since several members of the
list already have theirs, and have for a while, I thought I'd ask if
At 10:13 AM 7/14/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
Nikonscan 3.1 seems to work fine on my system, no crashes. Having said that
I don't use it because the scans come out posterised in comparison to
Vuescan output because Nikonscan only works with 8 bits of data from the
LS30. This shouldn't be an issue with
Unless your Pakons are a lot more transparent than mine, I doubt it, but I
would await some more knowledgable responses.
IMHO, I think that you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide
mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. The Pakon
mount I am currently looking
Trap for unsuspecting players. The infrared filter doesn't appear in the
Filter tab of Vuescan 7.1.5 when the source is set to disk until *after* you
preview the file. If there is an IR channel, the infrared filter checkbox
will appear.
Rob
Martin Gandy wrote:
I would like to contact any Canon FS2710 users with Vuescan experience. I
installed Vuescan because of the good reports but have always experienced
scans with the default sttings to have very low contrast, with the values in
levels bunched to the left. This is for both
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been making scans in 24-bit color for years, on
about 3 or 4 different film scanners. I don't use
the 48-bit color mode, ever, even on the 8000.
I know I would! :)
No posterization. I suspect there's another reason
for the posterization you're seeing.
I'll combine the slide film recommendation with the out of date film
recommendation. I was able to purchase about 50 rolls of Kodak 400
Elite Chrome for pennies a roll. 1 year out of date and it's not a
great film to start with, but it has helped me to understand all the
nuances of controlling
snip
I know you said your budget was limited, but why not keep an eye out for a
secondhand camera body (with the same lens mount), and keep the best camera
loaded with better film?
snip
MarkT
I know - I attend a lot of auctions and last night I passed on a Pentax
Spotmatic with a 1.4/50mm
Apparently two rolls of color print film were
either fogged by an xray machine or poorly developed.
The entire roll film is very dense but there are
images there.
Using a Nikon 2000 scanner or a HP Photo smart
scanner and nikon and vuescan software, what would be the best place to start to
snip
For once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, I always use fresh film but for
screwing around or more casual shooting, I'll use outdated film. If you
shop around, you should be able to buy it for half price (or less ... over
the past four months, I've successfully purchased 120 rolls of Fuji
IMHO, I think that you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide
mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. The Pakon
mount I am currently looking at has a slightly larger aperture on
one side
- if you study the slide closely from both sides I think you will see
snip
I wish I had the discipline to shoot that much for practice's
sake. I could
certainly use it.
Pat
After one roll of Provia 100F and a earlier suggestion that I can buy it
out-of-date for less than consumer negative film, I think that is the way I
am going to go. I need to find someone
Nikon gurus... I believe we discussed that the new Nikon MF scanner uses
LEDs as the light source, but does it use only one CCD row, and switch each
color on/off and scan each row three times?
Wouldn't that make it quite a bit slower than using a tri-color CCD?
just takes longer to learn how to scan negs with good consistent
results.
--James Hill
I will second that - using negatives with Mirafoto it seems like I had to
work forever on every scan, then with Vuescan it was just 1/2 forever (maybe
1/4) :-).
But scanning the slides I am spending most
It is better in practice of course, but with a little forethought and
extra work that benefit can be negated.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon,
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
At 03:57 PM 7/13/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light
path
82 matches
Mail list logo
