This is a good question, but one which has and will evoke a lot of opinions.
I do scan in 16 bit/color because it lessens errors. Let me see if I
can explain this in lay terms without someone complaining about my
terminology or usage.
Imagine a gradient of reds going from the darkest (let's
In a word, yes, you get some advantage. For one thing, you get 4 bits
extra per color (RGB) which is a fairly major difference in the number
of colors produced. There are 8 bit, 10 bit, 12, 14 bit scanners, and
beyond. Photoshop uses the standard 8/24 and 16/48 bit. Of course,
Photoshop can't
Titus writes ...
... there is something I do not understand.
If at the end we convert the image to 8 bit because printing
devices cannot beneficiate from the 16 bit depth what's the
use of scanning in 16 bit?
Wouldn't an image scanned with 8 bit colour depth be the same
with an image
Is anyone familiar with this scanner and give some comments on it. I
have the chance to get one for about $2100 US. Is this a good deal? I
am mainly interested in scanning 645 BW negs.
thanks,
Mike
Hi,
It seems that the new version of FilmGet (1.0.3) for FS4000 is far far better
than pravious. Finally my slides after scanning looks as original. The
exposure and saturation is correct without any manipulation. May be
only calibration time is longer. Does somebody observe similar things ?
David Ramey Photography
PO Box 944
Kasilof, AK 99610-0944
USA
phone: (907) 252-1910
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tom
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 9:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] FS4000 - new
Howdy there,
Here's an URL that might interest some of you:
www.dreamscapesphoto.com/files/p23graintest.htm
I came across some 6x6 neg scans that I did before I exchanged my Nikon
8000ED
unit. I decided to post those scans in contrast to these from the Minolta
Scan
Multi Pro.
Please try not
I just tried the new version on a Kodachrome slide, but can't report the
same success as Tom. I had found that the old version created a blue
cast on the image, and this is unchanged with v1.0.3. I'll be sticking
with Vuescan for now.
Mark.
tom wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the new version of
Hi David,
Very interesting comparisons.
What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more
detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain))
than the Nikon does.
Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20%
higher resolution, 4800
