thanks for your prompt feedback Jack,
regarding ROC, I was using it on an underexposed negative, as I think you
recommended a while back. ROC worked, shockingly so, but way too much. a far
weaker setting (like two or three notches down, not just one) for such thin
negs would be great,
and then may
> The new Minolta Multi Pro is one of those machines with different
> resolutions for different format.
I'd be VERY careful believing any of the dynamic range specs from that
scanner. It's probably pretty good, but I doubt it is any better than any
of the others that are 14 bits.
>From what th
Thanks for your comments Paul.
>Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame.
Digital GEM is designed to reduce noise, most commonly "grain" in film.
There are times when it will make a very noticeable difference, especially
in skin textures. There is one example at:
http://www.asf.com/produ
Paul.
I have been writing about focus problem with LS 4000 and LS2000 please keep
me out from any questions regarding the LS 8000 scanner.
Mikael Risedal
>From: "PAUL GRAHAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital IC
To Jack Phipps,
>The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out:
>http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml where there is a picture of an
>old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have
>unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent).
>
I'd appreciat
ncan
> Sent: 25 September 2001 23:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying
> Di lemma
>
>
> To Jack Phipps,
>
> >The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out:
> >http://www.asf.com/p
