Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from
slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than
adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me)
for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!!
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Rick
Rick, I'm not familiar with your scanner, but I'm going to pretend that I
know what I'm talking about. So fasten your seat belt; this may be a bumpy
ride.
Another post indicated, if I read it correctly, that your scanner has a
maximum optical resolution of 3200 ppi in one direction and 1600
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints
from
slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than
adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer
(me)
for the success of the print.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's another value that has to do
with how many dpi the
printer actually prints on paper, such as 1440 dpi.
But that value is
printer specific.
Good to point that out.
My Epson 2000P doesn't even let
me set that value. It
gives me a choice of
Hi Rick,
Actually, the manual is correct. The error you are making is in the
size of the file you expect you will be creating. If you are making a
scan of a 35mm film frame, you don't need to scan the whole flatbed
size, only 1 x 1.5, as you states. This doesn't make a 700+ meg
file. The
Ray Amos wrote:
Claudiu Falub wrote:
Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
garbage (Nikonscan
Lynn Allen wrote:
Hi Frank,
OK, then that would mean that the sensor array is vertical to the line of
travel, and the scan is horizontal, as we thought, and that makes sense. Now
optics *could* cause light drop-off, but frankly I don't quite understand
how that mechanism works, either.
Hello.
I made by mistake some pictures in daylight with a Kodak 64T EPY film
(tungsten film). This resulted in a blueish overcast that is very
unpleasing.
Does someone know a mask to apply with Vuescan to correct this blue
dominant ?
Thanks.
--
Christian Tsotras
At 01:56 AM 7/8/01 EDT, Roger Miller wrote:
snip
Roger, there were a couple of points in your recent
post to Rick Decker that I'd like to comment on.
My experience with the 1640 SU is that there is
absolutely no advantage to setting 3200 dpi
resolution (as compared to 1600.) There are a
At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of
problems.
And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's
scanner software as well.
Not having their scanner or need for their software...
So why add fuel to the fire, Art?
Am I cursed? In the last 24 hrs, I have done a bit of scanning with the
SS120. BTW, after I calibrated it using the Silverfast IT8, it is producing
colors that are nearly dead on, saturated, rich, wonderful colors! I have
however had some strange behavior from the scanner that I'm sure is not
I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an
SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits.
I am not sure I understand the settings correctly in VueScan. My scanned
images are showing a lot of burned out highlights. The Photoshop histogram
shows a lot of bright pixel clipping off the
I might
also suggest the vendor supports the Polaroid good as Gold guarantee without
any restocking charge in case you are dissatisfied in any way. Whom knows maybe
the color of the scanner case may clash with you wall paper. J
David
-Original
Message-
From: Stan Schwartz
You might try a lower Brightness setting in Vuescan and different gamma
settings to deal with the highlight clipping.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Stan Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:06 AM
Subject: filmscanners:
Lawrence,
Not a problem we have experienced before and every returned SS120 passes
through me. I will do further inquiries here, if this continues email me
directly.
David
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:32 AM
To:
I will say that some folks have not liked PolaColor Insight but hardly a
week goes by without someone emailing me to say they don't know what all the
fuss is about because Insight works great for them.
I am unaware of anyone who has complained about the PolaColor
Insight/Silverfast bundle we have
David,
Thanks so much for offer. I will let you know if it happens again. Other
than this little problem, the scanner is really nice! The Silverfast with
IT8 really makes a HUGE difference in the scans... A great bundle, well
done.
Lawrence
Lawrence,
Not a problem we have experienced
The fuzz was a inferior Polaroid Insight software during at least 2
years.!
Yes David ! Nikon have done the same mistakes as Polaroid did when they
released the first Insight version. Pre released and poor in all respects.
In other words - It took Polaroid
more than 2 years to produce
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner
manufacturers
seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this.
Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:28 +0930 Mark T. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
1. I have always seen many beginners, me included, get very confused
about the (non-existent?!) link between image resolution (ppi) and
'printer resolution' (eg the 1440/720 dpi setting).
Read the 'how much resolution
On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 09:20:26 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My two cents.
I agree with all you say Rafe.:-)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner
info comparisons
On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:51:29 -1000 Rick Decker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If I specify my output size, how do I decide what density to pick?
Read the 'how much resolution do I need?' section at my site
(Filmscanners|Scanner Issues|Choosing Using|Resolution)
Regards
Tony Sleep
The Silverfast with
IT8 really makes a HUGE difference in the scans... A great bundle, well
done.
In the UK and Europe we get Insight, SilverFast and BinuScan as standard.
Once you get to know SilverFast, especially some of its more advanced
features you'll find yourself needing to do
Ian
I think you shall try LS4000 with Silverfast before a judgment like this.
Or was your comparision including Silverfast 5.2 1 rev04 ??
Mikael Risedal
The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor
with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I find that the default gama of 2.2 is too high for most of my scans - try
lowering the gama. I use 1.5 to 1.8 normally.
Also, the white point % determines what percentage of pixels in the image
are at 255/1024... (max value). So I normally set this to 0.05 and adjust in
Photoshop where I have a
The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor
with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then I'm real
sorry for you Nikon users. The SS120 comes mighty close to Imacon quality
Comments like the one quoted above don't really add anything useful to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:56 -0500 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an
SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits.
Try a white point setting of 0.01% (0.0% is usually OTT), and adjust
Color|Image Brightness to a smaller
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 11:31:41 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I have
however had some strange behavior from the scanner that I'm sure is not
meant to occur. Three times so far it has gone dead while doing a
preview.
When I say dead, I mean DEAD! Power light goes dark, fan
The following link will give the details of the $200 end user rebate for the
Sprintscan 4000. The coupon can be downloaded via this link.
David
http://www.polaroidwork.com/promotions/promotion_list.jsp
Thanks.
What's OTT?
Also, I am actually scanning at 12-bits; that's the spec on the SS4000. PS
treats the image like a 16-bit. Is that introducing any problem?
Any idea what the fairly evenly spaced whiskers on the histogram
represent?
By the way, I am not able to access your website. I am
Hello!
I have a umax powerlook 111 with the tranny adapter. I mainly use it to
scan 6x6 color negs with VueScan. When the scanner was new, everything was
fine and I was a happy camper. But over time, the dust began to torment me.
Regular dust I can cope with. I'm talking about the kind that
I dream of someone
being in a postilion to do the same thing for the 35mm scanners
Patience, dear boy, patience!... :)
Regards
Tony Sleep
Really? Now I *am* excited - although the thing that most appeals to me is
the ability of some lucky bugger to have the comparison scanners at
Ouch! Yes it was the spell checker, with my help.
I like the often quoted useful phrase from an old French text book -
which was -
Lo! the postilion has been struck by lightning!
Very handy in so many situations,
Julian
At 02:07 08/07/01, you wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Peter Marquis-Kyle
For those trying to decide between Nikon's and Polaroid's
latest medium-format scanners, you might want to have
a look at
http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/film_scanners/
There are at present four reviews of the 8000 (mine
among them) and three reviews of the LS-120. I won't
spoil
I am assuming the tram lines are dark after you have inverted the color
negs to see the image as a color positive. If my assumption is correct,
there are several sources:
1. If the tramlines are quite defocussed, it could be dust on the
fluorscent tube(s) (the old tran head used two, the new
Stan,
Your computer (and most programs) can't deal with 12 bit packages of data,
so the program is converting it to the next larger package and pading the
top 4 bits for you. This has no affect of the image data - just just have 3
quarts and the closest bottle it can find is a gallon.
/fn
I don't know what OTT means either. Maybe, "over the top?"
As for 12-bit scans from the SS4000 that get treated as 16-bit: it's because
the folks who invented the TIF file formats only invented two of them. A
24-bit TIF format (for 8-bit per each RGB channel) and a 48-bit TIF format
(for up to
Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image
dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing
more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image.
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up
Tony,
He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to:
http://www1.cix.co.uk/
Larry
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and,
instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads.
***
Larry
40 matches
Mail list logo
