Following on from Tony's method here's mine - under a new topic as it has
nothing to do with Polaroid 120s. I don't think I'm too good at the actual
image processing side so I'm going to brush over a lot of that and describe
the overall workflow.
I am aiming to have scans of anything vaguely
Ed,
If I were only buying one film scanner, I'd buy the CoolScan IV (LS-40).
It's a really terrific scanner.
I will given this serious consideration. I'd narrowed the choice down to
the LS 4000 or SS 120 (I know, these are in different leagues), and was
leaning toward the latter (since I
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:19:31 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner
doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what
they actually capture.
You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:11:16 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I don't
think anyone makes a housing for my Pentax)
Ewa Marina make 'plastic bag' type housings which will fit almost anything
, good for down to 15m ISTR.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:14:50 Mikael Risedal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There are something else with VueScan just now if I compare VueScan to
NikonScan and Silverfast. Little bit flat, doll and color less.
Yes, I see low saturation too with VS+SS4000. Doesn't bother me personally
as I
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:41:32 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films
160ASA and under don't resolve to grain at 5080. It REALLY depends on
what
film, exposure and development.
If 4000 were the limit, then
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:31:34 +1000 Robert Q Groom
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Alas, the red and cyan colour fringing around high contrast edges
didn't change
at all. :-(
This is fairly characteristic of all filmscanners, to a degree at least.
Have a close look at some of the native
In a message dated 6/18/2001 6:59:21 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you suggesting that the LS-40 represents better value (less resolution
and D-Max, but also less expensive), or that the differences in
resolution/D-Max are so small as to be insignificant, or that this scanner
has
Tony wrote:
My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm images
neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route
unless unusually large viewing distances are involved, and I most often
print at A4. I like 'sharp' but don't much like grain in most
Robert wrote:
the red and cyan colour fringing around high contrast edges
didn't change at all.
Tony answered:
This is fairly characteristic of all filmscanners, to a degree at least.
Have a close look at some of the native resolution samples for different
scanners at my site. I don't believe
This is a very small snippet of a scan taken with my Minolta Scan
Dual
Which, according to Minolta, has an optical resolution of 2,438...
The maximum resolved pattern is group 5,
element 5 which has a resolution of 50.8 lpm = 1,290 line pairs per inch.
That comes out to 2545 DPI I
At 05:55 AM 6/18/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
I only re-size in PS (no interpolation, I just let the DPI fall where ever
it falls), then (in custom) set the print driver to micro-weave, not high
speed, usually to the highest resolution etc. Put paper in printer, hit
print button ;-)
OK, I *know* what happens when a very good camera lens does this
test--the
end of the scale turns to mush. Can anyone say what happens when
a CCD does
this? My guess would be noise, but I frankly don't know and I've never
seen it done. Any comments? I'm reaching.
It looks like:
Alan asks:
mnemonic ?
Can't remember what that means. ISTR I could even spell it
on demand, a long time ago.
Well, off the top of my head, a mnemonic is a device intended to aid memory
recall by substituting one word or phrase for another.
The danger, obviously, being that sometimes you
OTOH, test it out thoroughly in your basthtub first. A Pentax is not
particularly fond of even very small amounts of sea-water, and this I know
personally! :-)
Best regards--LRA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners:
I would defer to Tony. When I said Different, I didn't mean to imply that
Different is either better or worse, because it's not. It is merely Not
Exactly the Same. I have gotten far better pictures from scanning
underexposed Tri-X than I got in a conventional darkroom. By the same token,
I've
I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner
doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what
they actually capture.
You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable and varies empirically
according to subject contrasts, luminance and
Based on http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm ( if done
accurately) SS4000 is overall better than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is
not as good as his more expensive brother (this is easy to see!) the
Polaroid is a clear winner.
With no real knowledge about CanoScan FS4000US and
Thanks, Austin. I wasn't aware of the Leafscan 45 till you mentioned it
(digital imaging is a (perplexing) new world to me). Nice that it works
with multiple formats.
And that it scans BW with a single ND filter, instead of doing conversions
from RGB like every other scanner does (that I
Following Ed's advice I rescanned an image in Vuescan using infrared clean
restore colors
The result compared to Nikonscan 3.1 can be seen at
http://www.littlebarn.com/test/index.htm
After autolevel and curve correction in Photoshop I get an image from
Vuescan that is better than Nikon Scan.
And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film,
he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour
or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in
a hurry. g
That's not entirely true. It depends on the exposure time, and how new the
bulb is. If you set
This is just a note of thanks to all those who helped me answer, in
the negative, the question of whether scanners need to be level. From
the responses both on this list and on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, it
seems to be a non-issue.
Sam
Good point Walter. Perhaps I have been aiming too high in wishing to keep
4000dpi TIF's of all my images on CD. Perhaps a 4000dpi JPEG will suffice.
It would sure save a lot of storage space (AKA $$$).
Thanks for your thoughts.
- Original Message -
From: Walter Bushell [EMAIL
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as
I would venture to suggest that a 3-minute exposure using the same exposure
settings but with today's equipment will result in the same detail.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: RE:
Robert,
I wonder if you would mind taking a look at the
images I've posted on this web page...
http://users.bigpond.com/robert.groom/ss4000/
and then letting me know whether your conclusion
is the same as mine.
A rather obvious question but have you tried scanning the same slides in
Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has
often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue
(skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the
scanning process. If we scan BW film, we should (theoretically) have the
hi again, since i had no luck getting any help on this or the digitalsilver
list, does anyone at least know where i could look for an answer? is there
the equivalent of the old nikon tech forum somewhere?
thanks in advance
- Original Message -
From: Jules [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Alessandro Pardi wrote:
Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has
often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue
(skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the
scanning process. If
Hi
I have few doubts in VueScan please clear them
Please let me know the settings to be made in Color | Negative Brand
Color | Negative Type for
Fuji Superia 200/400, Kodak Max 400, Kodak Gold 400.
In VueScan, Color | Negative Type has things like 200 Gen 4; What does
Gen 4 stand for?
My
I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to a
Nikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to be
sharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention GEM and
ROC.
In reality Rick's sample do show that Nikon generally has the best
Tony wrote:
Ewa Marina make 'plastic bag' type housings which
will fit almost anything, good for down to 15m ISTR.
I've looked at getting one of these to try with my Olympus compact camera,
but it's likely to work well at anything more than a metre or two because
of the water pressure. If
Lynn wrote:
The old, slower lenses show their stuff, and the smaller format
tends to drop some of the detail. This leads me to think that the
lensatics and medium of the target picture is *still* more
important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is
competent in the first place.
I
At 06:00 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
Huh? How do they get even illumination, muchless correct wavelength light,
from LEDs as the light source? That wouldn't be my first choice I don't
believe, for a light source, or for filtering the light!
I don't know, and I'm not sure I care. It
This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
I actually used that technique in a scanner I worked on more than 20 years
ago! I don't believe I'd call sheet-fed paper scanners high quality film
scanners though ;-)
I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not
using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum
scanners or do not own scanners at all.
I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 price
range.
It is unfortunate.
Jules,
I have always received an answer from Nikon at
Nikon - Digital Imaging [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not usually the answer I wanted, but they do answer and quite promptly I
would guess their answer in this case (send it back for repair), so I am
afraid I have not been much help again
Good
I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to
aNikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to
besharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention GEM
andROC.
Sorry, but for those without this tool what is
GEM
At 02:29 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
[rafe b:]
And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film,
he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour
or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in
a hurry. g
[Austin:]
That's not entirely true. It depends on
I just need to save up for that dedicated underwater camera.
:)Try some of the older used Nikonos camera just
to get your feet wet. You can change lense, put on macros and change shutter
speeds and aperatures allowing the use of slower film and finer
grain.
Norman Quinn
[rafe b:]
And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film,
he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour
or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in
a hurry. g
[Austin:]
That's not entirely true. It depends on the exposure time, and
how new
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear.
Is this the effect of
At 10:27 AM 6/19/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount
lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken
with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than
photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the
autofocus
Peter wrote:
I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
though.
I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction
levels because of
What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have
USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good
SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost.
I like the LED lighting source and the dynamic range. My read on low cost
35mm film scanners is
Dan wrote:
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon
image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the
Leafscan is clear.
Must be something wrong with my monitor at work. The differences look very
subtle to me. Someone else made a good point though - how long did the
leafscan
Someone else made a good point though - how long did the
leafscan take to produce the scan compare to the Nikon? How long
from holding
the piece of film to having the TIFF file on the computer?
The scan time for most any scanner is reasonably deterministic. It is the
(exposure time * the
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Peter wrote:
I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
though.
I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear.
Is this the effect of
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were
viewed
through a veil of haze, while the
I've added a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 to my desktop (w/o trying to
level it 8). And installed both Polaroid's PolaColor Insight Pro
(4.5) software and LaserSoft Imaging's Silverfast 5 software. Both
were bundled. Silverfast 5 includes an IT-8 calibration module, which
includes profiling. A
52 matches
Mail list logo
