On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:48:17 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would
rather
have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and
if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:39:48 -0700 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point
source
enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast?
The odd thing is that this doesn't happen - at least no more than printing
on a harder
Art wrote:
To bring this into a slightly different realm...
Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in
the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering
adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering
and other human
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (shAf) wrote:
Derek writes ...
In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners
do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust
and scratches that are there are emphasised
because of the LED light source that they use.
To say the Nikons add dust and
Art: I have a LS-30 and mostly use Vuescan. There are times when I have failed to
use its version of ICE and wish I had done so. I would rather not see the dust,
specks, scratches, etc. on the neg. or slide at all. Any softening can be
corrected by using the USM.
It sure beats the process of
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
has been improved, and if so, by how much.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
has
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
has been improved, and if so, by how much.
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
has been improved, and if so, by how much.
What problems did the old
Derek writes ...
In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners
do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust
and scratches that are there are emphasised
because of the LED light source that they use.
To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light
source
Derek Clarke wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old
Derek Clarke wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on
I guess my take is that the adding of dust is just a corollary to
having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that
there
is dust or damage to the film...
Isaac
Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
against other performance factors.
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
owners are on this list.
The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend
to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
scanners?
All the sudden all these Nikon scanner
Dave King wrote:
Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is
the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much
difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and BW without
15 matches
Mail list logo
