From everything I've read about the Polaroid SprintScan 120, and from my own experience, it is one of the best medium format film scanners the average photographer can currently afford. It would be a shame for you to pass up such a fine scanner based solely on this argument. I've never noticed any
Hi Ed, Hi all
I am actually testing Portra 400BW , the new chromogenic BW film from Kodak.
Looks having a very wide range between black and white, which could make it
interesting.
Ed, could you add its profile in Vuescan?
Farther, how should I scan this particular kind of BW film in Vs?
Thanks David - for the input.
Have been looking at the price here on both the SS120 and the LS8000 and now find
there is A$1000 difference. So the choice is becoming clearer. Its do I need ICE
Cubes. But I do like what my LS2000 will do
Rob
david soderman wrote:
If you have not
Ron
I would have a look at the cheaper Nikon Coolscan IV which scans at 2900dpi. But
if, as you say there are some doggy slides amongst your lot then you will need
the Digital ICE - which now seems better.
At present I can scan slides with my LS2000 at 2700 dpi and then print them out
at 4K
Rob wrote:
Have been looking at the price here on both the SS120 and the LS8000 and now
find
there is A$1000 difference. So the choice is becoming clearer. Its do I need
ICE
Cubes. But I do like what my LS2000 will do
Don't forget about the new Minolta Scan Multi Pro. It also has ICE.
DRP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am actually testing Portra 400BW , the new chromogenic BW film from
Kodak.
Interesting - is this replacing T400CN which I hear is being phased out in
the US?
Rob
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:55:47 -0500, you wrote:
I have about 30 or so different varieties planted on my side hill. I think I
have that variety.
Hey, if you can identify the variety from the shot, that's probably
good enough color for me! ;-)
Ken
This is really a question for David Hemingway but maybe others have
experience...
How much better is the SS4000 + compared to the 'old' 4000? On paper it's
a better bit depth, am I correct? The Firewire doesn't matter, are the
results noticeably better?
And, just for 35mm, will the SS120
By chance I took a photo of a day lily this summer for my wife to use. Colors in that
one are less saturated, and primary flower color is more to magenta than red. There
can be different varieties, and probably differences due to time of day, light, and
location. NPH film, scanned on LS-30
i would doubt it - you can only buy it in packs of 5 here in the UK. T400CN
has replaced all the standard BW films that non specialist outlets used to
sell.
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting - is this replacing T400CN which I hear is being phased out in
the US?
Rob
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=455020size=lg
Wow! It's amazingly sharp! But did you intend to leave in the dust and
scratches? :-7
Rob
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:00:01 -0800, you wrote:
By chance I took a photo of a day lily this summer for my wife to use. Colors in
that one are less saturated, and primary flower color is more to magenta than red.
There can be different varieties, and probably differences due to time of day,
David.
Yes, it is better but depending on your use and requirements is it worth the
extra money? Silverfast has developed a multi-scan function for the 4000+
that I am told works well. Have not seen it myself.
I would imagine one could develop a test that showed the differences but I
am not sure
Roger, thank you for your reflexions,
you say that the Pola 120 "it is one of the best
medium format film scanners the average photographer can currently afford" -
indeed there are basically no more than 3 affordable MF scanners at all: The
Nikon, the SS120 and the Minolta Multi Pro. I
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:40:46 +1000, you wrote:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=455020size=lg
Wow! It's amazingly sharp! But did you intend to leave in the dust and
scratches? :-7
Rob
Heh. Missed a couple, didn't I? Ahem. :-/
That IS a sharp lens, BTW. Old chromenose Canon
le 29/11/01 14:38, Rob Geraghty à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
is this replacing T400CN which I hear is being phased out in the US?
Rob
Hi Rob
Sorry, I really don't know about Kodak policy. I think T400CN can still be
bought here in Paris. But Portra 400BW (which appeared here in July)
Stylistically, I'd call the Minolta boring rather than
ugly but it's made out of metal whereas the Polaroid is at least partially
plastic. The Minolta is also A LOT smaller and quieter than the
Polaroid. Neither effect scan quality but they do make living with the
scanner easier.
Also,
David,
Then I've done everything I can. The 8000ED is just plain slow
with my Mac.
It's ICE/GEM that is slow, not the Nikon.
If you turn off GEM especially the scan times are remarkably good in normal
mode...
I doubt if you compare equals (no ICE in either scan) that you would find
anything
David,
could you contribute something to
the debate about reflexions on the borders of the SS120 scans that some persons
haveon their scanners?
Could you tell sth about
1. what causes this problem
2. why it seems to accur on some
machines but not on others?
3. Is there anything that
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:14:38 -0800, you wrote:
Couldn't find it in your galleries - is it there?
Aak! Forgot to include the url in my earlier post (it's not indexed from the flowers
page). Sorry about that. Here it is:
www.shomler.com/other/018215.jpg
Bob Shomler
www.shomler.com
Aha -
It's ICE/GEM that is slow, not the Nikon.
If you turn off GEM especially the scan times are remarkably good in normal
mode...
I doubt if you compare equals (no ICE in either scan) that you would find
anything quicker in any of the scanners you mention.
At 4000 ppi w/ICE,
8 bit, 1 pass...a 6x6
Bernie,
There
are two issues here.
Reflections There can appear a shadow along the sides of the
film which, I think, a reflection from the plastic side rails of the cover.
That is the supposition at the moment. I will be looking at it closer this
evening. There are several possible
Paul,
does "only one shot at a time" mean that you will
have to cut all your neg strips? Or is it just that you can only SCAN one at a
time which is not so dramatic given the slower speed of MF scanning and the
incredible amount of data...
Its interesting what you have to say about the
Stylistically, I'd call the Minolta boring rather than ugly but it's
made out of metal whereas the Polaroid is at least partially
plastic. The Minolta is also A LOT smaller and quieter than the
Polaroid. Neither effect scan quality but they do make living with
the scanner easier.
We are
In a message dated 11/29/2001 5:48:43 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the Minolta claims 4800 dpi with a 7260 pixels per line CCD.
How do they do that?
They move the lens closer to the film when scanning at
4800 dpi. The lens is farther from the film when scanning
at 3200 dpi.
Minolta
Ken wrote:
That IS a sharp lens, BTW. Old chromenose Canon FD 100/2.8. Scanned
on a FS 2710, with a touch of USM. 140%, 1.2 pixels, IIRC.
Looks like I'm going to Japan next year, which should give me the chance
to pick up a really good lens or two at a decent price. It's frustrating
knowing
Didier wrote:
Farther than the right profile in Vuescan, advices and tips for scanning
chromogenic BW will also be welcome!
Isn't there a profile for T400CN in Vuescan? Or you could use the generic
setting and convert to greyscale later.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Is it the 4000 or the 4000+ that's currently
available? I couldn't tell from a quick look at the Polaroid
website. I did notice that the rebates appear to have been extended until
January 31st -- a good thing, no doubt.
- Original Message -
From:
Hemingway,
David J
To:
Why would one buy a multi format scanner to get the same
size file regardless of format. I don't understand.
Why should the format of the film define the enlargement size? With a film
scanner that provides resolution proportional to the film format, providing
the film is decent enough
A comment from a SS120 owner that I was asked to forward on.
David
-Original Message-
From: Robert Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:reflections from the neg carrier
I have been following the
Yes, we're talking about the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. If you dig deep enough
you will find the optical resolution for MF which is 3200 dpi. This should
explain the difference in CCD. In any event, 3200dpi is plenty for a scan
of a 6x7 transparency and the scans are excellent.
Paul Wilson
Ed,
The stepper motor can actually move at 9600 dpi, which
is evenly divisible by both 4800 and 3200.
Does this mean they are doing something more than what is usually done for
interpolation? Also, I downloaded the trial version of the latest VueScan
and used it with my Minolta DSMP. An odd
The plastic used in the carrier cover has a shine to it which is
the likely
culprit.
Why not just take some 240/320 or so grit sandpaper and break the shiny
finish?
Winsor Crosby wrote:
On other scanners interpolated
resolution is 2 or 3 times the optical resolution. It is often said
that it is a false number and should be ignored. What is the
Minolta's optical resolution on medium format? Is it actually about
2000 dpi? Why would one buy a multi
In a message dated 11/29/2001 5:48:43 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the Minolta claims 4800 dpi with a 7260 pixels per line CCD.
How do they do that?
They move the lens closer to the film when scanning at
4800 dpi. The lens is farther from the film when scanning
at 3200 dpi.
Can someone tell me what exactly is the difference between the LS-2000 and
supercoolscan 2000? It looks like it may be the best deal to move my slide
collection to digital form... It appears they can both use the same bulk
slide adaptor. Is there a software difference? A hardware difference?
Why would one buy a multi format scanner to get the same
size file regardless of format. I don't understand.
Why should the format of the film define the enlargement size? With a film
scanner that provides resolution proportional to the film format, providing
the film is decent enough
The stepper motor can actually move at 9600 dpi, which
is evenly divisible by both 4800 and 3200.
Does this mean they are doing something more than what is usually done for
interpolation?
No matter how fine the stepper motor is, the CCD can only see at the
resolution of the field-of-view
Paul Graham wrote:
and then say:
but so far the banding hasn't been visible
in the normal mode.
so, in fact the others are right, no? banding is getting blown out of
proportion by those who dont own the machine and/or those with vested
interests. If you do come across an unusual slide,
Geez, you might as well try a SS120 and you can talk about all three with
some authority. I might be convinced to lend you one so you can see what a
good scanner does!! :)
RegretfullyDavid
-Original Message-
From: david soderman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday,
Why would one buy a multi format scanner to get the same
size file regardless of format. I don't understand.
Why should the format of the film define the enlargement size?
With a film
scanner that provides resolution proportional to the film
format, providing
the film is decent
Is there anyone one the list that could send me a sample exposed roll of
medium format 6x8. Not used in the US as far as I can tell. Some use in
Europe I think. Want to add it to the software.
Thanks
David
Magic markers really don't provide a non-reflective surface on a smooth
surface...so I don't believe that would really solve the problem.
Well, I tried the magic marker along the edges, both on the edges of the
carrier, and on the carrier cover, also. Sorry to say, it didn't work.
So, I
43 matches
Mail list logo
