Hello!
On their site, and in their literature, Kodak extols the virtues of
Supra for scanning. Does anyone have experience with this film? I like
Fuji Superia a lot, but I do get some grain aliasing problems with the
400 ISO, and VueScan doesn't have a profile for it g!
I will shoot a few
Austin Franklin,
So now you want to challenge his credentials to have opinions. You've
obviously got heartburn about Entlich. It is evident that it is
personal in the way that you never seem to miss the opportunity to
challenge whatever he is saying. I, for one, am bored to death. Please
take
Siiiggghhh :-(
Maybe I'm just having a bad day...
Out of curiosity, do you have a web site
What does having a web site have to do with quality of opinions?
Sorry for this sounding like a personal attack.
Why be sorry? It is one. And I for one am very sick of this stuff.
We are all
- Original Message -
From: ThomasH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The race against our old good 35mm film is on
and it will not stop till the film will be gone.
Buddy you may not know it
but you are a kind of a poet
and you have a lot of things you want to say..
When your gloomy
I surely
You have a definite bias against Nikon, which is fine by me. At least you're
open about it. However, you should be more forthcoming about the fact that
Polaroid has been providing you with a scanner, and that this may bias your
opinion towards their products.
I don't what bias the other person
Hello!
On their site, and in their literature, Kodak extols the virtues of
Supra for scanning. Does anyone have experience with this film? I like
Fuji Superia a lot, but I do get some grain aliasing problems with the
400 ISO, and VueScan doesn't have a profile for it g!
I will shoot a few
The problem with flatness of the CCD and CMOS sensors dictated even
modifications in lens design.
How does lense design help solve this? The light rays come from what ever
angle they come from, and I don't believe lense design can do anything to
help. This issue is only pertinent with wider
Best site IMO - digital cameras.
Go to dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022309fourdslrs.asp
Still doing all my works ( since Aug 2001) with my D1X, superior results
compare to 24 x 36 film and my LS2000 , LS4000 and Polaroid scanners. No
grain. dirt and other problems.
Art
You have it wrong- re banding ( its not - they are fine lines )
http://www.maxwell.com.au/support/faq/ls8000/11414_ls8000_jw.html
Question. Sometimes I get very fine lines in my final scan. Is there a way to minimise
this?
Answer Yes. In Tool PaletteScanner Extras tick the check
Sorry, forgot to add that I scanned this with my Polaroid SS4000 RAW), then
had to work with it for awhile in Paint Shop Pro before achieving the final
image. Use a different scanner and you might well end up with a different
image, use a different approach in PSP (or PS for that matter) and the
I spent about a half hour with David Hemingway earlier today. I had a
chance to discuss with him his participation in the forums and felt it
would make a good informational piece for my web site. So here's my short
interview with David: http://bermangraphics.com/events/pma2002.htm
I also want to
Since the Minolta Scan Multi Pro comes with glass carriers would it be
possible to use oil mounting techniques with this scanner. I use them with
my CreoScitex Jazz+ (at work) and it does improve the scan.
I'd be leary of any mounting fluid leaking inside the mechanism. It could
cause some
Austin Franklin wrote:
The problem with flatness of the CCD and CMOS sensors dictated even
modifications in lens design.
How does lense design help solve this? The light rays come from what ever
angle they come from, and I don't believe lense design can do anything to
help. This issue
I don't wish to add fuel here but I must say I tend to come down in the Art
camp on this one. I don't know this gentleman, have only read what he's
posted to this list. It reads like sober stuff to me, but then I'm no
authority in particular in this area. On the other hand I have some
experience
I think what Les is trying to say is that his lens would act like a
32-65 or whatever as it would appear on a 35mm field, if it was placed
on a reduced size digital chip.
Art
izzet wrote:
Well, actually your 18-35 zoom is not turning into anything, it is still
18-35 regarding dof,
And I for one am very sick of this stuff.
I'll second that. This whole debate between Moreno, Art and Austin is
*soo* tiresome. :-(
As for me, well, my website will fail professional scrutiny
quite miserably. So I'll now take some time off the list -
my opinions will not be
there are people are there buying Nikons _in spite of_
these issues solely for the reason they wish to associate
themselves with the Nikon brand. That, and the fact that
with the Nikon you can also get ICE packaged.
I think people are also forgetting that the depth-of-field issue affects
Anthony. Anthony. Wherefore art thou Anthony A :-)
At 10:42 25/02/02 +1100, you wrote:
Siiiggghhh :-(
Maybe I'm just having a bad day...
Out of curiosity, do you have a web site
What does having a web site have to do with quality of opinions?
Sorry for this sounding like a personal
Hi Les,
I haven't used it. I do recall some displeasure expressed over this
film some time back by people who were scanning it. Whether the success
depends upon the operator, the film speed and grain size, or even the
scanner in question (lighting source, optics, or resolution (DPI/LPI)) I
I use Supra 400 for nighttime racing photos and scan them with a Canon
2710. For the most part I have been pleased with the way it scans over other
400 speed films I've tried.
- Original Message -
From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 24,
Mikael Risedal wrote:
Best site IMO - digital cameras.
Go to dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022309fourdslrs.asp
Still doing all my works ( since Aug 2001) with my D1X, superior results
compare to 24 x 36 film and my LS2000 , LS4000 and Polaroid scanners. No
I don't mean to sound thick, but your posting is too cryptic for me to
understand how in any way it discredits what I have said (and I even
went to the website you site... which just repeats what you wrote below...)
Can you please expand on this further so my thick head can understand
your fine
With the help of the filmscanners group I've spent about 200 man-hours
tweaking the color management profile in my Epson 2000P last year. Much
thanks to all for your direction and encouragement in that seemingly endless
trial.! No, seriously. If it wasn't for input from this grouip I wouldn't
I'd think it would be possible to design a digital camera back that had such
a back element built-in, to redirect the light from a standard 35mm lens
and either collimate it for the larger sensor, or concentrate it onto the
smaller sensor. More glass involved, thus somewhat compromised quality,
Supra is really easy to scan with Vs. Never had the shadow of a pb with it.
I used 400 and 800. Great range, grain is more than correct. No aliasing at
2400dpi.
Another yhing is how you'll like the color and tonal rendition of this film.
I personnally prefer Portra NC, which I find more subtile,
My scans have improved dramatically since you gave me some
pointers. Thank's very much. Grain is no more a problem for me now than
it was in a wet darkroom.
You mention unsharp mask. I really don't know how this feature should be
used (I don't have docs with PS). I commonly use about 50 in
Peter,
Just for the sake of accuracy, the second line attributed to me, was not
written by me. I did not reply to Austin's posting, in general, I don't
anymore.
Art
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
[Austin] Out of curiosity, do you have a web site
[Arthur] What does having a web site have to
No, I never had problems like this.
From what I can see in my SF200 there are no parts that even can touch
the surface. Are you sure it's the feeder?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Im Auftrag von
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the help of the filmscanners group I've spent about 200 man-hours
tweaking the color management profile in my Epson 2000P last year. Much
thanks to all for your direction and encouragement in that seemingly endless
trial.! No, seriously. If it wasn't for
John Pendley wrote:
My scans have improved dramatically since you gave me some
pointers. Thank's very much. Grain is no more a problem for me now than
it was in a wet darkroom.
I'm really glad to hear that. It's always nice when I get a bit of
positive feedback. (Publicly, no less...
I have a number of square color images that I would like to have printed
large. Can anyone point me to a web site (or to an actual location, if in
the Boston, MA area) that can handle custom sizes (I'm thinking 2' by 2' to 3'
x 3') and surfaces at prices that are not going to bankrupt me?
I would append to your advice that I find it helps to zoom into the image
edges till one starts to see individual pixels, then apply the unsharp
mask, increasing gradually and observing the effect on the preview, until
strange things start happening, and then back off a bit. In Photoshop,
there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have experience using the 50 slide feeder for the Nikon Scanner
4000ED. When using this feeder, I noticed slight parallel rub/scratch marks
on the slide that run the length of it. Any similar experience?
Fortunately not, but I got a series of close calls
33 matches
Mail list logo
