test

The message cannot be represented in 7-bit ASCII encoding and has been sent as a binary attachment. <>

filmscanners: test

testing M _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[filmscanners] Test

Not receiving posts today?? Owen P. Evans Osgoode, Ontario. Canada (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners

[filmscanners] test

test Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] test

test Ken Weissblum Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Test

I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear and I don't get any admin/error messages. This test is just to see if a message with different text fares any be

filmscanners: test-ignor

 

filmscanners: Sharpness test

ng to compare it against! I attach a jpeg of small section of the scan, obviously without any sharpening applied. If any of you have done this test, how does it compare with your results? What's also interesting is how hard it is to get a really fine score even with a scalpel blade and ho

filmscanners: ADMIN: test

Test - please ignore (I seem to have been removed from the list for 24hrs!) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons

[filmscanners] RE: Test

It got through. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear > and I > don't get any admin/error messages. This test is just to see if a > message with different text fare

[filmscanners] Re: Test

Just so you know, your message was distributed - that is, I got it. Brad On 22/9/04 14:22, "Al Bond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear and I > don't get any admin/error messages. This te

filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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

Minolta ScanDual Resolution Test

I scanned the USAF 1951 test target on my Minolta ScanDual scanner using VueScan software. The results were much better than I expected. The test target is very high quality chrome on glass with resolution bars far beyond the limit of my scanner. The attached file <> is a very smal

Re: filmscanners: test-ignor

Can you please turn off all this HTML rubbish in your mail client (MS Outlook Express|Tools|Send as plain text) . It adds vastly to bandwidth and some mail clients cannot understand it. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & compari

Re: filmscanners: Sharpness test

> It looks reasonably sharp but, like all such tests, I have nothing to compare it against! > I attach a jpeg of small section of the scan, obviously without any sharpening applied. > If any of you have done this test, how does it compare with your results? It looks very sharp to me

filmscanners: test - please ignore

thanks

Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: test

Tony writes ... > Test - please ignore (I seem to have been removed from the list for 24hrs!) Just enough time for Ed to go from Vuescan 6.5 to 6.6 :o) shAf

Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: test

Tony Sleep wrote: > Test - please ignore (I seem to have been removed from the list for 24hrs!) > > Regards > > Tony Sleep It's that darn erratic list owner. Rumor has it he does the strangest things. Art

filmscanners: test - just delete

qqq

filmscanners: test - just delete

qqq

[filmscanners] Test - please ignore

Test - please ignore _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with

[filmscanners] Epson3200 - Test results

both finding it and using it (it's a bit messy, although less than I feared). Technical details in the photo.net page should fully explain the test, but feel free to ask for further information. The following is the first "real" scan (not including tests, I mean) I made wi

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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 i

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

Mikael, 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

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

Dave - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid > A small comparison between Imacon Photo 3200 ppi , Polaroid SS120 4000 > ppi, and N

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/mounts-twin.html Dave - Original Message - From: Raphael Bustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid > > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Mikael Risedal

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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 scan

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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 Im

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

> 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. S

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

>> 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 http://www.computer-darkroom.com

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

>>> 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 sl

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

>> 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

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 >> 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

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

> >> 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?

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

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:

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

- 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 Imaco

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

At 01:17 AM 7/14/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: >If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness >in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)? A good question, Dave, and I don't have an answer.. just an observation. In the last Traveling Portfolio that I pa

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness > in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)? A bigger budget for the lens? ;) - but also the whole point of a curved film gate is

Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

- Original Message - From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 9:30 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > >

filmscanners: Nikon IV test results

Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale obtained with Vuescan (Slide setting and B&W=0.001) show exceptional linearity down to an OD of 2.11, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. Using OD axis, the sensitivity is actually highest between 1.6 and 2.11. It appears the sensor or the

filmscanners: Cnaon FS4000 - test results

Hi, If you like please take a look for some results obtained from FS4000. I have shown influence of exposure control on dark slides scanning, and results obtained for print films (no correction) and results of FARE activity. The relevant address: http://ket5.tuniv.szczecin.pl/tc_www/photo/FS4000/

[filmscanners] OT e-mail test

I am attempting to send this via plain, non HTML text. I just need to see if it posts. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appro

[filmscanners] ADMIN: test - please ignore

PLEASE IGNORE! Test of mail distribution with to: field modified to show list name instead of individual recipient name. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED

[filmscanners] ADMIN - TEST - PLEASE IGNORE

Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] ADMIN: Mail-archive.com test

The Archive at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] has not been working properly lately, with this list. This is a test of a fix by the owners. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe

[filmscanners] film vs digital test

I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40". I invite s

RE: filmscanners: Nikon IV test results

So, some questions Mike: 1. how would you alter my conclusions on my website? 2. which slide films do you think the LS40 has enough DMax for? 3. your results from Vuescan's Slide setting seem radically different from those I got - what gives? 4. will you continue to investigate multi-scanning

RE: filmscanners: Nikon IV test results

>So, some questions Mike: > >1. how would you alter my conclusions on my website? > >2. which slide films do you think the LS40 has enough DMax for? The only slide films I've shot in quantity are Kodachrome 64 & Extachrome (200 & 400), all within the range of DMax (Kodachrome pushes the limit). I

filmscanners: VueScan LS-8000 Test Version

I've got a test version of VueScan that works with the Nikon LS-8000. I hope to release it in the next day or so, but it would be useful if anyone with an LS-8000 (on Windows) could test it. If you find anything that needs fixing, please let me know today. It can be downloaded from:

RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

Hi Alex, Sorry but I am a little busy, so I am not able to prepare some real tests of FS4000. If you like take a look at my home page http://ket5.tuniv.szczecin.pl/tc_www/photo/index.html Under hyperlink "TEST FS4000" you will find some tiff files with full resolution (Provia 100F, FI

RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo Hi Alex, Sorry but I am a little busy, so I am not able to prepare some real tests of FS4000. If you like take a look at my home page http://ket5.tuniv.szczecin.pl/tc_www/photo/index.html Under hyperlink "TEST FS4000" you will find some

RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

Hi Alex, As it was pointed by the others, FS4000 is good machine. The only problem is probably lower DMAX. In case of dark (underexposed) slides I am using "Exposure +1" and the results are satisfactory (properly exposed slides are giving always proper results with auto gain). I hope that it will

RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

ubject: RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo Hi Alex, As it was pointed by the others, FS4000 is good machine. The only problem is probably lower DMAX. In case of dark (underexposed) slides I am using "Exposure +1" and the results are satisfactory (properly exposed slides are giv

Re: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

For Tom, How does the FS4000 perform with print film (Fuji 400), with/without using Vuescan? Thanks, John. tom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > As it was pointed by the others, FS4000 is good machine. The only problem is > probably lower DMAX. In case of dark (underexposed) slides I am using "Exposure

Re: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

In a message dated 10/4/2001 9:25:18 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Perhaps he will be able to explain us how to handle properly negatives using > his software... The most important thing when scanning negatives is to crop the image tightly enough so you don't have a lot of the white borde

RE: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo

Mark Van Buskirk Boulder, CO [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 2:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon's scanner Test photo In a message dated

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

n one..? Regards, mark t > > From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: filmscanners: Cnaon FS4000 - test results > Date: 05/11/2001 20:40:10 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > If you like please take a look for some results obtained from FS4000. > I have shown inf

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

How do you put a +2 in filmget or getfilm??

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

> But it also looks like the extra exposure has blown the highlights pretty > badly Please remember that the presented images are all after gamma correction. I corrected gamma in order to "amplify" noises in very dark area (dark area in underexposed (-2) slide). It was adjusted more than necessary

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

In device control there is an option Exposure, I do not have the scanner here, so I can send you more precise answer in the evening. Tom --- David Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How do you put a +2 in filmget or getfilm?? > __ Do You Yah

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

That would be great Tom. I had this scanner for a few months now but haven't really used the filmget software too much. On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, tom wrote: > In device control there is an option Exposure, I do not have the scanner here, > so I can send you more precise answer in the evening. > Tom

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

In FilmGet v1.0.1 1. In menu Settings -> Exposure Settings... 2. switch off Auto Exposure 3. Now you can adjust Exposure from -2stops up to +2stops. By the way I do not how to control exposure in Vuescan, exposure 6 does not allow obtain same results as +2stops in filmGet. Regards Tom --- D

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results

In a message dated 11/6/2001 2:41:36 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In FilmGet v1.0.1 > 1. In menu Settings -> Exposure Settings... > 2. switch off Auto Exposure > 3. Now you can adjust Exposure from -2stops up to +2stops. > By the way I do not how to control exposure in Vuescan, expos

[filmscanners] Test - Members Need Not Open

In response to an administrator request, I am attempting to comply with plain text requirement. Looking for acceptance or rejection from the site only. Thanks Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with '

Nikon film test image protocol (long)

tocol needs modification. I don't think any changes to the actual photo- graphic process will be needed, possibly only the scanning. Thanks in advance, Rob = Introduction: Why test films? Since I bought my Nikon LS30, I've been

filmscanners: UMAX Test Version of VueScan

I've got a UMAX test version of VueScan that's available for testing (Windows version only). It's been successfully tested on several UMAX scanners, and I'd appreciate it if people could test it out with a wider range of UMAX scanners (scsi models only). It can be down

[filmscanners] ADMIN: test #2 - Please Ignore

Please ignore. Further test of list distrbution Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe film

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

on 7/14/04 8:48 PM, Norm Carver at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the > new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, > just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with th

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

From: "Norm Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 <<< Also try Provia 100F. You may find it less grainy than the Ektachrome. > are scanned on a Minolta MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some ad

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

2004 04.48 skrev Norm Carver: > I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the > new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, > just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product > in books and large

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

First of all, I wouldn't consider the test to be valid bearing teh huge gap in lens qualities. You'apparently putting Hasselblad's lens (i.e. Zeiss ine, even though zoom) against this "all-in-one" kind 28-300 Tamron turist's orineted zoom. I think to provide correct b

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

Norm, Although both of the below sites compare the 1DS (similar to your SLR/n) with a Rollei and a Mamiya 7 (more sq. mm than your Hassy), I found the sites to be informative and ran tests much better than I could hope to do. http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html http://www.wlcastleman.

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the >new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, >just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product >in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40". > >I invite suggestions and/or cr

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

He apparently doesn't realize that Tamron and Tokina make privately branded lenses for a number of camera mfg. I've always found both brands to be very satisfactory. Which is how they test

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

RantMode=On Does it bug anyone else that so many of these tests are run at small apertures? Too few are at f/5.6 or f/8 where a typical good prime is at its best. It's not like subjects hundreds of feet away need f/16 for DOF, so the lenses are needlessly handicapped by diffraction. RantMode=Of

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon IV test results

Mike wrote: >Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale obtained with Vuescan (Slide >setting and B&W=0.001) show exceptional linearity down >to an OD of 2.11, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. Dumb question - are you using 48 bit output from vuescan? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PR

filmscanners: Nikon IV Depth of Field Test

Using the film strip adapter SA-21 with the Nikon IV and NS3.1, I obtained the following focus Nos. on a relatively flat Max400 negative (Landscape): End Frame: L Mid Right Top 221 228 219 Mid Top 217 225 217 Mid 213 217 212 Low 212 221

filmscanners: Test version of VueScan for SS120

I have a test version of VueScan for the SprintScan 120. If anyone would like to test it, it can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/files/test120.sit (for Mac OS 8/9/X) http://www.hamrick.com/files/test120.zip (for Windows) To test the Windows version, unzip it into c:\vuescan If

RE: filmscanners: UMAX Test Version of VueScan

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: UMAX Test Version of VueScan I've got a UMAX test version of VueScan that's available for testing (Windows version only). It's been successfully tested on several UMAX scanners, and I'd appreciate it if people could test it out with a w

Re: filmscanners: UMAX Test Version of VueScan

Ed: Does this mean I can't use it on my Astra 2200 USB model ? Mike Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got a UMAX test version of VueScan that's available for > testing (Windows version only). It's been successfully > tested on several UMAX scanners, and I'

filmscanners: A quick test of Vuescan 6.6

in sharpness. Using the scour filter may have done a better job on the small spots in the river or clouds. On the face of this perhaps unfair test (since I didn't compare the scrub or scour filters), ICE still seems to have an edge if the film being scanned is badly damaged. However, for me

Re: filmscanners: Color negative Film test strips

- Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (although test strips are available for C-41, I don't : believe any of the manufacturers offer to read them) Art, alll the chemistry manufacturers have reading services. regards Michael Wilkinson. 106

Re: filmscanners: Color negative Film test strips

Michael Wilkinson wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (although test strips are available for C-41, I don't > : believe any of the manufacturers offer to read them) > Interesting. Even the one hour lab

Re: filmscanners: Color negative Film test strips

Art, you've been confused I am afraid Roman At 18:59 27/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Michael Wilkinson wrote: > >>- Original Message - >>From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>(although test strips are available for C-41, I don't

filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 vs Nikon ED4000 comparison test

I am been very pleased with my Polaroid SS4000 scanner over the past year, but have been suffering some scanner envy when reading about the new Nikon ED4000 scanner's advertised improved dynamic range and ICE dust removal. Therefore I performed some tests to compare the two scanners in an attempt

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon IV test results

>Mike wrote: >>Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale obtained with Vuescan (Slide >>setting and B&W=0.001) show exceptional linearity down >>to an OD of 2.11, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. > >Dumb question - are you using 48 bit output from vuescan? Yes. I'm going to mail

Re: filmscanners: Nikon IV Depth of Field Test

your figures. Best regard Mikael Risedal >From: Mike Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: filmscanners: Nikon IV Depth of Field Test >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:18:08 -0400 > >Using the film strip adapter SA-21 wit

filmscanners: ICE & GEM Resolution Test on Nikon IV

>Now I wonder if Mike Duncan's gonna post SFR data for ICE Normal and ICE >Fine on film in the FH3 or slides in the MA20... > >Jawed The frequencies (cycles/in) at which SFR are 50% & 10% with Kodak Max400 are: 50% 10%

filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro/SS120 test URL

Bernhard Ess > Unfortunately I didn´t yet find a good review for the Polaroid 120... Yeah, me too. Can you give us some URLs to site where the SS120 from Polaroid is being reviewed? I'd like to see detailed pictures if its film holders, some practical hints, etc. And BTW the Minolta Dimage Scan

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

us point: >> >> <http://julianv.home.mindspring.com/focus_test/focus_test.html> > >No, there are too many other differences for this to be a useful >test. It isn't clear if sharpening has been applied to the NikonScan >result, and the range of intensities is different

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

In a message dated 12/5/2001 1:38:10 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I followed the above suggestions as closely as I could. The new results > can be examined at: > > I'm convinced. I'm going to add a focus offset x/y o

RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

Ed writes ... > ... > I'm going to add a focus offset x/y option, with zero being the > center, -1 being the left (or top) and 1 being the right > (or bottom). > > If focusing is done with the preview, these will be relative > to the entire preview. If focusing is done with the scan, > these wil

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

In a message dated 12/5/2001 8:33:39 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > How would these numbers relate if the preview were rotated? They don't - they're relative to the unrotated position. I'm fairly sure most people will just leave this at the default values (-0.33, -0.33). >Knowledgabl

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

On 12/5/01 8:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: >In a message dated 12/5/2001 8:33:39 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >writes: > >> How would these numbers relate if the preview were rotated? > >They don't - they're relative to the unrotated position. I've already cast my vote for a

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

If x-y coordinates are to be used, the upper left corner coordinates should be identified as '-1, +1'. Regards, John. Julian Vrieslander wrote: --snip > > I'm not sure that I understand your explanation above. In an earlier > message you said that (-1, -1) would be used for the upper left co

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

On 12/5/01 7:23 PM, John Rylatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: >If x-y coordinates are to be used, the upper left corner coordinates >should be identified >as '-1, +1'. That's the convention for mathematical graphing, sure. In programming environments, it's common to define axes so that the down

[filmscanners] Canon S9000 test better than Epson 1280

I just read this review which says the Canon S9000 images look better than the Epson 1280. Any one here have any personal experience with the Canon? How good is the Color profile? http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,23008,3373126,00.html Bob Kehl -

Re: filmscanners: A quick test of Vuescan 6.6

Vuescan did a better job, also lots more detail in the shadow areas. I would say Vuescan did a better job on the scratches too but this only based on small web images. Thanks for the comparison.. "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I happened to try scanning an old (circa 1980) kodak 100

Re: filmscanners: A quick test of Vuescan 6.6

Herm wrote: > Vuescan did a better job, also lots more detail in the shadow > areas. I would say Vuescan did a better job on the scratches > too but this only based on small web images. Thanks for the > comparison.. Overall the results from Vuescan were far more useful - mostly because of the col

  1   2   >