> Yes, I have found the above to be true. While I was testing a
> Nikon 8000ED,
> I was totally blown away by how superb ICE worked with that scanner! I
> currently have the Minolta Scan Multi Pro on which ICE does a much poorer
> job!
But the Nikon "has" to have ICE to be competitive, as the l
>I know you love your Polaroid scanner. It is a great scanner. But, it
>will
>be a better scanner with Digital ICE.
I don't agree with that. "Digital Ice" is needed more so on a scanner that
uses a point light source, and is not near as needed on a scanner with a
diffuse light source, and the P
> If you wish to have a perfectly flat surface then use a glass
> carrier
In a scanner, that brings up a whole other set of issues.
> The problem is depth of field by the way.
Why?
> Even if any given scanner could offer a suitable dofield the image will by
> any definition be distorted.
Er,
Simon,
> I accept that the software can assist in pulling more information out of a
> negative
Boy, do I disagree with that... How on earth can software "pull more
information out of a negative", aside from the control of the light source
and the analog gain stage prior to the A/D? Those aren'
> Although I agree that hardware sharpening, or even non-disclosed
> software sharpening, is problematic in testing for non-sharpened images
> in analyzing sharpness, I question the value of looking at a
> non-sharpened image in terms of determining which scanner has higher
> resolution,
Hi Art,
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >
> > > I think you have done a good conclusion here. If you go back in
> > > the mailing
> > > list you found what I have been written about film flatness
> problems .
> I
> > > did last summer a test with my
> I think you have done a good conclusion here. If you go back in
> the mailing
> list you found what I have been written about film flatness problems . I
> did last summer a test with my own 3 scanners LS2000. LS4000 and Polaroid
> 35+ against Imacon Photo.
> None of them could match the Imacon
should mention "Smart & Friendly". They are out of
> business, seems
> their CEO ran off with millions.
> David
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 10:07 AM
> To: [EMAI
Speaking of "off brand" units...I'd heard great things years ago about
"Smart and Friendly". I believe they won the PC Magazine shoot-out a number
of years ago...and I have no idea what they are doing today. I know when I
was on staff at one of the top PC manufacturers (at the time) they were
su
> Hello Austin,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > > There's still a lot of sample to sample variation with
> those monitors. I
> > > also bought a G420 and had to return it as the image
> was so soft the
> > > monitor was practically unuseable.
> >
> > Is that model a direct drive, or use analog RGB video? I
Hi Philip,
> I have just been scanning Kodak 400cn B+W and I am very impressed with the
> lack of grain and scan quality on my LS30.
>
> However on some shots I find that the black and white points in VS are
> easily set and look fine but the mid tones seem rather muddy ie skin tone.
That's been
> There's still a lot of sample to sample variation with those monitors. I
> also bought a G420 and had to return it as the image was so soft
> the monitor
> was practically unuseable.
Is that model a direct drive, or use analog RGB video? I can't imagine how
a direct drive could be soft at all
Hi Art,
>(earlier CDR product was well built and very expensive,
> but wasn't perfected) and yet it is still at a high enough profit
> margin, that quality is built into it and it lasts.
I have two HP 4020i CDR drives, and they were NOT well built, but they were
very expensive. I believe th
Hi Peter,
> Austin
>
> Yes, I do have a web site. It's main purpose is pitching my
> business -- I'm a
> conservation architect (in the US I would be called an historical
> architect, or
> preservation specialist, or some such thing).
Cool! Do you know much about Gothic Revival Victorian archit
Hi Simon,
> OK Austin, who is the young lady ;-) Does a Leaf scan make all women look
> like that!
>
> Simon
I assume you mean:
> > and last but not least:
> >
> > http://www.darkroom.com/Images/JS01aw.jpg
> >
> > Hasselblad 2003FCW/80-2.8CF @ f2.8/Plus-X 125/D76 1:1
Surely the Leaf is part o
> > Out of curiosity, do you have a web site
>
> What does having a web site have to do with quality of opinions?
It doesn't, necessarily. I thought it would be nice to actually see just
how much real experience Art really has. People with real experience have
far more credible opinions and adv
> The problem with flatness of the CCD and CMOS sensors dictated even
> modifications in lens design.
How does lense design help solve this? The light rays come from what ever
angle they come from, and I don't believe lense design can do anything to
help. This issue is only pertinent with wider
> >>Art
> >
> > You sure have a lot of opinions, but it doesn't sound like you've
> used any
> > of the scanners you mention.
> >
>
> Yeap, I have a lot of informed opinions.
Art,
Out of curiosity, do you have a web site, or can you point to any images you
have posted on the web? It would
t;
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 5:29 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Foveon patent details
> >
&
> DISCLAIMER: Of course, I don't know anything, and am just a "parrot". So
> I'm probably making all of this up. Ask "the engineer".
>
> Art
Hi Art,
Well, it's good to see that kind of honesty coming from you!
When you parrot something, you're obviously not making it up...it's the same
stuff
> they use the depth of
> the 'wells' to create a filter based on the absorption
> characteristics of doped silicon to the diff wavelengths. (phew!)
Hi Mark,
I understand that is what they show/claim...but one issue with that is the
filters typically used for scanners/enlargers/cameras are VERY
> It's not just teh imaging sensor chip that makes
> this a better system, it is the lack of necessity to process the image
> information through "labour" or processor intensive math.
Are you referring to the interpolation used to process the Bayer pattern
colors? Using three sensors per pixel I
> Austin said:
> > The sensor array still have individual sensors for each of the
> colors, but
> > uses three of them per PIXEL.
>
> I guess you could call them 'individual', but the diagram 1/2 way
> down this page:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021102foveonx3tech.asp
>
> shows that t
> I, naively perhaps, have often thought that simple things like 'sensor
> motion blur' and 'scanner shake' might have something to do with it. When
> looking and listening to my LS4000 scanning, I start to wonder
> how long the
> sensors actually stays still, and how this relates to the length
>
My interpretation is that Saturday is also OK too.
Oh, and no need to clip anything, after all, it IS Saturday ;-)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bernie Kubiak
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> S
> > Now that is interesting. I understand the principle, but my
> experience, is
> > that drum scanners actually require more sharpening than high
> end CCDs...at
> > least that's what I've seen in scans I've done on both a Howtek
> 4500 and a
> > Leaf 45. Though I agree, what you say makes sen
Hi Jack,
> Okay Austin, I've got the Doctor looking over my shoulder right
> now. He says
> that with MOST scanners (especially ccd) because of the pixels sensor
> density, there is light piping between sensors causing a loss of
> sharpness.
I don't believe it's light piping, but electronic cros
arket. Below, I clearly show two
drives of similar specs for the same price. That IS the market. If someone
wants to spend money needlessly, that is their personal business, but the
point is, and still stands, that they are comparably priced.
Cripes.
Austin
> On Wednesday 06 Feb 2002 10:53 pm, Au
> If walked into a computer store and priced a SCSI and IDE drive,
> the results
> would be as I reported.
Wanna bet?
> >> by coming up with the exceptions.
>
> >Well, it is YOU who came up with a comparison of two exceptions...
> > a cheap LARGE IDE drive with an expensive SMALL SCSI drive.
>
Steve,
> 5) raid striping is less reliable than a single disk of similar size.
That is a very debatable point (the rest of what you said, sounds fine to
me). It is a MTTF (Mean Time To Failure...and do not confuse that with
MTBF) issue, and MTTF for current drives is far more than yours or I wi
> I'd like to find out more about the IBM Thinkpads that use SCSI
> drives. Can
> you point me to a link on www.ibm.com? Just one model would be sufficient.
I personally don't know of any notebooks that use SCSI drives, but I would
be happy if and when they do, at least have an external SCSI port
> How much faster is the best SCSI (Ultra wide?)
Currently it's U160 and U320!
> than current ATA 100 7200
> rpm technology?
Quite a bit, if you run RAID 0.
> Is it worth the extra hassle of SCSI?
It isn't necessarily a hassle, but it sure can be...which I am sure is true
of IDE RAID systems
> >> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
> increase
> for SCSI vs IDE.<<
>
> I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
> vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the
> results in a
> previous message. The SCSI driv
> The newer and larger 7200 rpm drives typically have a larger
> cache than the
> older drives, and this would provide a larger performance gain than going
> from an Ultra ATA 66 to Ultra ATA 100.
Do you believe a larger cache helps with large file reads and writes? For
reads it is no help, and
> Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay
> four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI
> over IDE.
I think that's BS. Do you have numbers to substantiate that, using same
speed drives?
> >How much longer does digital ICE take really? I'm assuming that if I
> >just leave the scanner to work overnight that won't matter, unless it
> >takes a very long time!
>
> This is very CPU dependant. Faster CPU's take much less time.
REALLY? This isn't done in the scanner...in real time?
A
> (Moving DBLs is like dancing with a bear - once false move and
> you have 100
> kilos of speaker impressing itself through a spike into your foot!)
>
> Jawed
I understand, I have Snells...
Austin
Unsubsc
Erik,
> The Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO does 4800 PPI on 135 film, and 3200 on
> 120. Scanning at 4800 PPI may give som additional resolution in one
> direction, depending on the physical size of the pixel. The other
> direction
> is entirely interpolated.
That's not what I understand. I beli
> I've made the histogram type an option in the Prefs tab. The options
> are Linear, Square root and Logarithmic. I'll release this in VueScan
> 7.3.5.
>
Hi Ed,
Why not make it selectable in the histogram window?
Regards,
Austin
> Austin,
> I guess we are back to my original disclaimer about not being
> able to discuss this. If you claim that
> 'scans', are not of the grain of the film, I don't understand
> where the scanner is getting it's information
> from.
Harvey,
You are obviously not understanding what I am sayin
Harvey,
> What I was trying to say was that a scan of a negative (let's say
> B&W) *is* a scan of its grain. If the
> scanner can't get the grain sharply rendered then it can't make a
> sharp scan.
You can get sharp scans and NOT scan "down to" the film grain. In fact,
most scanners do not res
> Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi
> scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or "samples per inch", if we
> want to reduce confusion).
>
> Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these
> scanners?
>
> Jawed
Hi Jawed,
I don't qui
kon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the
> extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
> I think its a mixture of b) and c)
>
> Greetings bernhard
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
> Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> looking prints
> at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with
> his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> better, no more visible detail.
Bernhard,
Might that have been because th
Harvey,
> So, I still maintain, that in *this* discussion, the sharpness of
> the original has no bearing on the need to
> sharpen scans for printing.
For YOUR purposes, if you want to shoot a Holga and scan grain, that's
fine...but most people 1) don't do that and 2) don't do that...so how is
t
> Austin writes ...
>
> > > And aren't higher bit level scans sharper than lower bit
> > > ones?
> >
> > No. In fact, they would be softer, since there are more
> > tonal levels. Sharpness is really nothing but contrast,
> > as in difference in tonal values.
>
> I don't agree!! What you a
Hi Harvey,
> > HI scan 35mm at 5080 and do not sharpen at all. I also shoot
> with Leica and
> > Contax (Zeiss) glass, as well as develop my own film, so I can
> control the
> > quality of the development.
>
> Aren't 'sharp' images on film a different issue than sharp scans?
Yes, but your scans
Hi Chris,
> I'm curious to know if those who scan and print 35mm negs --using a 3600
dpi
> scanner and above -- typically sharpen their scanned images before
printing.
I scan 35mm at 5080 and do not sharpen at all. I also shoot with Leica and
Contax (Zeiss) glass, as well as develop my own film
> I am currently scanning monochrome negatives MF 6x6 using an Epson
> Expression 1680 Pro using Vuescan. Until recently I scanned at
> the optical
> resolution of 1600 dpi. I have recently tried scanning at 3200dpi which I
> assume is true in the line of scan due to the half step from the steppe
I'm in Harvard, MA (crossing of Rte. 2 and 495...not Cambridge).
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wilson, Paul
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 10:17 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: 6x8
>
>
> One more MA p
> For information, I had gone through many periods where I was not printing
> anything for a week or two, maybe longer. I think I will now try to put
> something through it at least weekly. Still, I wonder how long it will
> continue to be clog free.
It sounds to me like either the rubber wipe
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 g
> > > 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 fi
> > 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-
> 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?
> 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 (es
> ICE was an important factor for me.
I haven't had any dust problems with my scanner, and it doesn't have
ICE...but I do make sure my film doesn't have any dust on it before putting
it in the scanner. The Nikon, because of its LED illumination tends to
exaggerate the dust...so it does need ICE
> This discussion of whether the Kodak chip is true 16Mp or only 4Mp
> seems to be based on either/or assumptions. The reality is that the
> luminance (B&W) information is true 16Mp, ie, distinct and
> non-interpolated allowing each sensor element to contribute discrete
> information, while the c
It will also hurt used sales of these...or create bargains for people who
don't mind living with the defect. What a shame.
> It's probably the usual problem of someone (or several people) quite
> influential in the organisation either not understanding the full
> implications of the issue or no
> --- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > or it is NOT a true 4k x 4k pixel back, but a 4k x 4k
> > sensor
> > back.
>
> Depends on how the advertiser defines a pixel ... ;)
Yeah, I've thought about that...and I don't know any definition of
What information can you reference that says that? Their brochure shows it
as a single sensor, not three sensors and a beam splitter. If that is true,
then it either take three successive shots, using different color filters
for each shot, or it is NOT a true 4k x 4k pixel back, but a 4k x 4k se
> Yes, the DCS Pro back is definitely a 16Mp device.
The OUTPUT of the processed CCD data IS 16M pixels, but how they achieve
that 16M pixels is using a 16M sensor device, which has four sensors grouped
together in a 2x2 quad, one R, one B and two Gs. They interpolate the color
information acro
> > Does anyone think that Nikon will fix or can it be rectified
> > with Firmware or software?
>
> I was told by a senior manager at Nikon that it would not be fixed in
> this scanner. That's why I bought a drum scanner (an amazing machine)
> and nikon took my 8000 back.
I hate to say it this w
> In case it might be of interest, here's the text from my LS-30
> Nikonscan manual (pdf file):
>
> Analog gain is used to adjust the intensity of the scanners light
> source, emphasizing selected colors in the input image. The
> controls for analog gain consist of four sliders: a master slide
Thank you for that very informative post. There is one issue I believe
warrants clarification, IMO.
> So you don't want to scan at 1440 dpi at full size to deliver a
> file to an Epson 1440 dpi printer, the driver will just toss all that
> extra info,
The driver should/does not just "toss" the
ion for HD and images
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah
>
>
> I thought this was a SCANNER list. Could we take this whole
> thing off line.
> It's clearly turned into another Austin Franklin platform for argument and
> pedantry. I'm getting a blister on my DEL key fin
> > why do you believe "the software has to resample" when creating
> > a dither pattern?
>
> Last Q 1st ... If the res of your image is (e.g.) 300PPI, and
> you indicate
> "draft", "good" or "best", then there needs to be some translation. If
> there is a printer specific optimum resolution a
> You should know that not only do striped disks reduce reliability
> and hence
> increase risk but they also increase severity.
As I've said, that's misinformation. Do you have any real MTBF testing data
that backs up your claim, or is it just speculation?
> i.e. any one drive of a multiple st
> But it's not as simple as this either. Depending on the printer and the
> driver which translates your pixels/inch into dots on paper (e.g., HP's
> method, Epson's method, Postscript's method), the software will have to
> resample your pixels ...
BTW shAf, why do you believe "the software has
> which may beg the question ... "If I
> want to avoid
> resampling artifacts, is there an optimum res to send to the printer?" In
> some cases the answer is "yes".
shAf,
What cases do you know of (WRT modern inkjet printers that is)?
>From my experience (WRT modern inkjet printers), the answe
> On page 67 of that book he shows a tiny 32 pixel image scaled to 5
> dpi. It's printed as a 6.4 inch graphic with pixels that are,
> obviously, 1/5 inch in size. My question is, what does this say about
> print resolution?
> The printer is obviously using a certain number of
> dots to produc
> Can we PLEASE take this RAID discussion off-list?
Sure, but you might want to heed your own advice, instead of throwing your
$0.02 in here too!
> And there is enough misinformation
> being thrown around here that it is just confusing everyone.
You're right, even you are doing it! There is al
> MTBF of a RAID-0 system (or dual cpu/memory where one unit CAN
> NOT continue
> without the other) will always be lower than a single drive unless the
> standard deviation (they never quote SD) of the MTBF is zero.
Well, if you take duty-cycle into account, which MTBF calculations do, you
wil
> >What I do
> > know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know.
>
> Mmmm, how do you know what you don't know :)
Cause I don't know it ;-)
> When I first wrote this about 5 mins ago I was about to send the
> message when the PC reset itself. Did you cause that Austin ;)
May be, kin
> on 11/11/01 10:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an
> >> Adaptec 29160 controller)
> >
> > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean
&g
> ... The biggest increase in performance is from one to
> two drives,
Absolutely, and that's per channel, so a two channel system would greatly
benefit from four drives, two on each channel.
Moreno, thanks for your post, it was right on the money.
> Seems like you have done everything and also know everything.
Not everything, but having been an engineer for 25 years, I have done many
projects including digital imaging systems, and SCSI systems... What I do
know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know. I don't just make
things
> > No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA. SCSI
uses
> > four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.
> The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices
> each controller while permitting 16 addresses.
A device IS the same as a SCSI addre
> > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
> > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
> >
> > WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.
> >
>
> How many addresses have you per controller ?
> from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself.
> SCSI is not I
> It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive.
No and no. I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the storage
division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well as
tested disk subsystems. I know how MTBF is determined.
> Actually,
> more exactly it
> My point is that, with RAID 0, if one disk fails the data on all
> the disks
> is lost.
And if you have one disk, and it fails, all data is lost.
> Also, MTBF is additive in this case because of what I previously
> said.
No it is NOT. I designed RAID controllers and disk subsystems, as we
> The RAID 0 is taking half
> the data and
> pushing it to one hard drive, and the other half to the second,
> giving you a
> slight edge in speed since the bus to each hard drive can be loaded while
> the other hard drive is munching on the data it just received.
Not if implemented correctly.
> Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
> number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.
> BTW , this method compulsorily implies a DOUBLE WRITING need i.e.
> write the
> data + write the new parity (even if on another di
> Also consider that striping doubles your chances of losing your
> data
NO it does not. MTBF is NOT additive. Whether you have 1 or 100 devices
that have a MTBF of 10,000 hours, the MTBF of the system is still 10,000
hours.
> RGB values mean diddly squat.
> They are just a measurement of the amount of current in a scanner
> ccd
Only if it is a raw scan. A typical scan has the data setpointed and
tonally adjusted. That means that 0 IS the darkest value in the resultant
file, and 255 IS the lightest value in the fi
> I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea.
> The reason
> is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one fails, you
> lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many, smaller
> logical drives. It's great from a performance standpoint but tha
> your assumption being that 0,0,0 is totally black and 255,255,255
> is totally
> white in that 2.2 gamma colour space. Would be a pretty daft
> colour space as
> you can't get either on a monitor or printer and so you end up wasting a
> whole bunch of values that could never be properly exp
> Tomasz wrote:
> > Why do scans of color negatives appear grainier
> > than those from slides?
>
> From what I've read on this list, it's related to the exposure latitude
> of colour negs. To get greater latitude, the grain in neg film varies in
> size much more than in slide film. The very nar
> I
> wonder if this is due to some sort of "stacking" effect (Austin?),
You're over the extent of my knowledge here, but thanks for the thought ;-)
> I don't mind grain, in fact for certain things I kinda like it. I
> like the slightly "impressionistic" effect of the image falling apart
> as you get very close, and then see the "molecular" structure of the
> image instead. There can be a certain beauty in that.
Absolutely! If it's intent
> Austin,
>
> I want to apologize for the brusque tone in my previous post.
Gee, thanks ;-)
> What I
> should have said, and am saying now, is that based on what you write
> here I doubt you would think these particular prints look great. And
> that, of course, is your choice, and it's OK with
> I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs
> shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great.
I doubt they *really* look "great".
> I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for
> 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you reso
> At the risk of stating the obvious, to reach the limits of your lens
> resolving power you must either select a fast shutter speed or
> use a tripod,
Or be very good at holding the camera very steady...
> otherwise the image will be somewhat soft due to camera shake. Even then
> problems can
a 4000 dpi scanner is a lot
> less forgiving. If your negative or transparency isn't sharp,
> then the best you can hope for is that your scanner will produce
> an equally bad image.
>
> In a message dated Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard
> Time, "Austin Frank
> Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between
> their lenses when scanning films?
Drastic difference, yes!
> Austin wrote:
> > What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
> > does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
> > primes to Leica/Contax primes...
>
> Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
> I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the
> I tried a flashlight on top of slides, but you need to disable
> the internal
> scanner light. You can get very contrasty results by covering the slides
> with white paper of white scanner lid.
>
> Mike Duncan
You must have a lot of free time on your hands ;-)
> I don't believe that the scanner is the limiting factor at the moment,
> and that's why I'm looking at getting at least one better lens. I'm not
> planning to buy a new scanner - I'd much rather spend the money on a new
> lens!
What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
> Winsor wrote:
> >It seems to me that the 2700 dpi is the limiting factor. Rather like
> >the old joke about the senior citizen stereo sale special. Doesn't
> >matter much how good the speakers are if you can't hear them.
>
> No, I don't think so. I've tried scanning a few of my slides on
> a
I do use a piece of glass on top of the ClearFile film strip sheets...the
transparency adapter doesn't hold them flat!
I don't know that you could get that uniform a light source and/or a strong
enough light source with the method you describe. Why not just get a
transparency adapter, or a scann
201 - 300 of 870 matches
Mail list logo
