Hi Yuv,
Eric is right, it's about the dynamic range of negatives vs. positive
slide film. It's so much easier to already get washed out lights while
shooting a scene with slide film.
I find it also really easy to scan negatives, but I still have to redo
some panoramas from 1996, a couple of shots I did for Marlboro then in
Arizona and Utah. After that I can really tell the difference :-)
To put it the other way round: is there a reason why you would prefer
slide film over negs if we put away all digital cameras for a moment?
And yes, VueScan is on my list of interesting software for the Nikon
Scanner... otoh I also use a Hasselblad scanner which is operated with
it's own proprietary software. I don't think that VueScan can work with
Hasselblad scanners, last time I checked it won't do. So there are
always some variables in a workflow. :-)
Carl
Eric O'Brien schrieb am 24.09.10 05:50:
It wasn't my recommendation, but I would agree.
Why? Last heard, negative material can capture a wider dynamic
brightness range from a scene than transparency material. Plus, the
developed film has a *lower* dynamic density range than transparencies.
That should make it easier to get higher quality scans.
eo
On Sep 23, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
On September 23, 2010 06:26:32 am Carl von Einem wrote:
Shoot color negative film and scan the frames with 16 bit.
any reason why you recommend color negative as opposed to slides?
try VueScan (hamrick.com)
highly recommended. It has given new life to my old Nikon CoolScan LS30
(Nikon stopped publishing drivers after Windows 2000).
Yuv
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and
other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
