This film scanner is receiving a lot of commentary. My suggestion is
that anyone considering it be sure to read the FULL reviews about it to
better understand it's limitations and benefits. I is certainly cheap,
and apparently high res, but it is not without major flaws.
It comes with Silverfast
ie
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: 19 July 2005 15:32
> To: McGilvery,WC,William,NLW171 R
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
>
>
> I have to plac
Jack,
Thanks for the input. It's great to have folks from industry
participating again in this forum.
Jim Sims
Jack Phipps wrote:
>Actually, Digital ICE works quite well with most Kodachrome film.
>There are certain images that are troublesome. Certain batches of film
>with a lot of cyan are t
silver halide emulsions very well, so it does not work with
> B&W or Kodachromes which use silver halide emulsions.
>
>
> Original Message
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:25 PM
>
L PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Phipps
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
>
> Actually, Digital ICE works quite well with most Kodachrome film.
> The
Actually, Digital ICE works quite well with most Kodachrome film.
There are certain images that are troublesome. Certain batches of film
with a lot of cyan are the most serious cuprites. For example I
scanned an image of a man wearing a dark navy colored cap. Of course
there was a high density of c
lmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
> My only suggestion is that whatever you do, you should do it
> with Digital ICE enabled. You will want to use the scans as
> is and not screw around trying to remove dust from the images
> (other than a couple blast
My only suggestion is that whatever you do, you should do it with Digital
ICE enabled. You will want to use the scans as is and not screw around
trying to remove dust from the images (other than a couple blasts from your
Dust Off before you scan).
Berry
On 7/19/05 6:06 AM, "Simon Pearson" <[EMA
scanners, demonstrating the cloudiness
You refer to.
Willie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: 19 July 2005 15:32
To: McGilvery,WC,William,NLW171 R
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommend
I am the one who sent Simon here from a Yahoo group. I knew he'd get
better answers here!
A while back, we discussed the Plustek Opticfilm 7200 scanner, which
sells new for as little as $US189. It was high-resolution but I recall
the downside was that it had a small dynamic or density range
(which
I have to place some caveats into this discussion, Constantine.
1) The Nikon LS2000 tends to have some mechanical issues with it's
stage, which can lead to banding, so be careful with used models. It is
VERY costly to repair.
2) This person mentioned he has a lot of Kodachrome slides. The Nikon
Scan Dual is something like $240, yes? Sounds like a remarkable
deal for a dedicated 35mm scanner. I use VueScan for B&W
scanning and really like it. Haven't tried it for color scanning, though.
Sounds like a very reasonable, low cost plan, though.
Scott
Simon Pearson wrote:
>I have been rec
12 matches
Mail list logo
