Actually, the RFS3600 requires a prescan of every image, up to 36 per strip.
But once again this is batched and takes about 20 seconds per frame, so 15
minutes later, it is ready to do the final 1.5 hours of scanning (if it
finishes without crashing). So really, it two batches for the RFS3600.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kodak RFS 3600 Scanner comments (cont.)
> Gee,
>
> I was thinking about this scanner for a future purchase. Thanks for the
> warning. That does beg the question of batch scanning. My Minolta Scan
> Dual 2 does up to 6 frames, but you have to put the strip into a carrier
> that isn't tight enough to hold the film still so the film will creep
> sometimes causing less than full frame scan. It also has to do an index
and
> then the real scan. That means you have to nurse it along. No walking
> away. So, it is better than 1 at a time, but not by much. I'm not that
> happy with it. Anybody out there happy with a sub $1000.00 scanner?
>
> Bruce Dayton
> Sacramento, CA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerald F. Cermak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:21 PM
> Subject: Kodak RFS 3600 Scanner comments (cont.)
>
>
> > I've owned this scanner since earlier this year, having no scanner and
no
> > patience to wait for the new high priced Nikons. For those interested,
> here
> > are some further comments about it.
> >
> > If you are thinking of scanning mounted slides, it works well out of the
> > box, and the rest of this is immaterial to you. However, the film
> transport
> > and focusing mechanisms have design and manufacturing problems. The
> latest
> > software has numerous annoyances. Together these will make life
difficult
> > for film scanning folks, to say the least.
> >
> > 99% of my images are on negatives and unmounted slides in strips. So
this
> > capability is very important aspect of a film scanner for me. In fact,
> the
> > RFS 3600's ability to scan a whole 36 film strip appealed to me from a
> time
> > saving perspective.
> >
> > The product turns out to be a real dichotomy, in that it performs best
on
> > mounted slides, yet offers no slide feeder capabilities at all. With
> that,
> > it's primary appeal would be to people scanning film strips, especially
> with
> > the desire to do a whole roll at once (a unique feature in the market
> > currently). Face it, scanning film, especially at higher resolutions,
> such
> > as the 3600 dpi the RFS3600 offers take a lot of time. The more
automated
> > the process, the less invasive it is to your life. God knows we all
spend
> > too much in front of Photoshop as it is, why add more the basically
> > mechanical process of converting analog images into digital form with a
> > fixed recipe.
> >
> > My plan was to get all film back from the lab uncut, feed it into the
RFS
> > 3600, do some initial adjustments on the first frame, and then tell it
to
> > scan every frame to disk with the same settings, returning 1 or 2 hours
> > later to do any editing. That was the plan, the reality follows:
> >
> > In the RFS3600, the focusing is performed using a plastic frame holder
> that
> > is pushed down on each corner in up to 20 steps (film strips) or 40
steps
> > (mounted slides). The differences in focusing steps between mounted
film
> > and unmounted film will be obvious in a moment.
> >
> > Focus setting "1" (of 1 to 20) is perfectly aligned vertically with the
> film
> > transport guides and transport rollers on either side of the focusing
> frame.
> > The transport's internal film guides run outside the image area, along
the
> > sprocket borders, with the pinch roller running on the film sprockets
> > themselves. All well and good, so far. However, there has been velvet
> > installed on the top and bottom portion of the transport over the film's
> > image area. The felt is so thick that is rubs on both the emulsion and
> > non-emulsion side of the film both on the intake and outtake sides of
the
> > transport. The inbound and outbound pinch rollers are connected in
tandem
> > rotation by a toothed-belt driven by one stepper motor. This means the
> > right and left sides of the film always move in the same direction.
> >
> > When the RFS 3600 focuses, it moves just the center frame downward using
> the
> > central frame holder. The central frame holder rides on pins, while the
> > whole thing suspended with some rather fine springs. My unit only had 2
> > pins at diagonal corners, yet there were mounts and holes for 4 pins,
one
> at
> > each corner. As the film is pushed downward to focus it, tension is
> created
> > by the fact that the pinch rollers on the left and right side of the
unit
> > each have a fairly good grasp on the film. As the focus approaches the
20
> > mark (around 15 or greater), the film strip is actually under so much
> > tension that the frame image will buckle in the middle, completely
> changing
> > the image's distance from the lens.
> >
> > Now imagine this, when scanning the first or last frames of the roll,
the
> > tension only comes from one side. In this case the films goes through
> > different gyrations during focusing, partially due to the pair of
missing
> > vertical guide pins, and some missing screws holding the center frame
> holder
> > together. For the first frame, with the tension on the left only, the
> right
> > side of the frame would be pushed down further than the left side,
causing
> > nothing but a narrow portion in the middle to be focused. The more the
> > focus value approached its limit of 20, the more tilted the image
became.
> >
> > [ this is longer than I had planned, so I'll cut to the chase ]
> >
> > After repeated scans of the same image, the heat from the lamp under the
> > film causes it buckle slightly, changing focus over time.
> >
> > When scanning long strips, 36 images is the software's limit (37 doesn't
> > work), and often on Win98 (occasionally on Win2k), the scanner software
> > would crash after frame 16 or 17.
> >
> > The velvet used collects dust quickly, and will add dust and scratches
to
> > clean film strips. Removing the felt causes the unit to malfunction and
> not
> > recognize film, as the light sensors think the plastic is film, and
tries
> > forever to eject a non-existent film strip upon first power up.
> >
> > Forgoing the warranty (instead thinking class action lawsuit), I
> endeavored
> > to see if an otherwise fabulous lens and scanner element could be made
to
> > work better.
> >
> > I found 2 M3x25 roller pins, ground them down slightly the same height
as
>
> > the other two, and put them in the unit. The bound the center image
> frame,
> > so I driller the holes larger where needed so the binding was gone. I
> added
> > the 2 missing tiny screws holding the back edge of the center image
frame
> so
> > it wouldn't split under film tension. I removed all the velvet, and
above
> > each of the 3 sensors I drilled 1/4" holes so I could small squares of
> > velvet above them without touching the film.
> >
> > I also played with the image sizing and focusing (complicated to explain
> > here, but requires a caliper to get the focus properly set). I moved
the
> > proper focus range as close to the "1" setting as possible. "4" turned
> out
> > to be achievable. This reduced the tension on the film considerably,
and
> > finally consistent focusing was achieved, though the first, middle, and
> last
> > frames all had different ideal focus points, but consistent from film
type
> > to film type, which is better.
> >
> > To anyone who has gotten this far, you probably realize that the RFS
3600
> is
> > a disaster, and should be pulled from the market and considerably
> > reengineered before allowed to be sold again.
> >
> > I should add that I've had 2 different 1 hour phone calls with Kodak
about
> > the film strip focusing problem, and each time that claim no one else
had
> > problems with focusing using the newest software (which I have), and
they
> > quickly dismissed my suggestions that it has a design or manufacturing
> > problem.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gerald
> > -Your neighborhood tech reporter on the beat. :)
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
