On 8/22/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > >> Of course, you don't get results quite the equal of a film scanner, > >> although it's faster. After all, you get about a 6Mpixel image rather > >> than, say, a 10.2 Mpixel image (2820 ppi) or 21.43 Mpixel (4000 ppi). > > > > Currently, I'm getting hi res scans with no shadow detail. A loss of > > resolution and a better overall image is fine by me. Thanks for the > > tips. > > If your scans are lacking in shadow detail, either the scanner has > too low dmax capability to handle the density of your originals, or > your originals are blocked up in the shadows, or you are not setting > the scan software appropriately to accommodate the difficult nature > of the originals. > > Most scanners available today will handle a dmax in the 3.4-4.0 > range, which is about the same 8 to 9 stop dynamic range of the DSLR > sensor, and output full [EMAIL PROTECTED] quantized data rather than > [EMAIL PROTECTED] like the DSLR. In other words, if you can't get the data > from the originals with the scanner, you likely will not get anything > better tonally with the camera but it will be lower resolution. > > The only advantage, and it may be a considerable one if you have a > lot of particularly blocked up originals, is that you can push more > light behind them and make multiple exposures at different exposure > levels, composite them together, with the DSLR. Scanners usually have > a fixed light source and therefore don't allow this option. > > I know this from my work capturing difficult slides and negatives > into digital images with both scanners and cameras. The only reason I > go the DSLR macro route with Minox negatives is that I can get > substantially greater resolution that way. For 35mm work, even a > cheap film scanner (like the Minolta Scan Dual II that I've used > since 2000) does a better and more consistent job. >
I've tried just about everything I can think of. I've tried canon's drivers and vuescan. It's become apparent to me that the scanner just can't pull the shadow detail out of my slides. This is not picking nits about minute amounts of detail. These are details I can see holding the slide about a foot or so from my face. No clue what the DMAX values are for the 8400f. Canon doesn't publish that information about my scanner. I can't justify the expense in a high end scanner. So I'm looking for possible alternatives. Thanks for the tips. Much appreciated. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
