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
I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend
their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that
ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow
the whistle.
I just have the Artixscan 4000T.
Unless you keep your scanner
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
I have also used LS2000 with many Kodachromes and have had GREAT success
with them. My problem was mould and some quite awful slides have been
rescued with minimal work. I tried one of them before getting the Nikon
and spent 3 hours (it was a very bad attack of mould) fixing it in PS. The
[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
Rob wrote:
I wonder
if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence
it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually
adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust
and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the image?
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
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Hemingway, David J wrote:
Ed,
I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was
considerably
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 writes ...
... 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, ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
scratches ... that
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
Dave writes ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
shAf :o)
... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
The Nikon sees stuff that
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
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
everything I've read and my own personal experience.
Don't believe everything you read (including what I write smile).
I guess all I
can say is scans on
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever)
do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal
resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou?
Art
shAf wrote:
Dave writes ...
... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
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
]
Subject:Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
everything I've read and my own personal experience.
Don't believe everything you read (including what I
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
Dave writes ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
shAf :o)
... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
The Nikon sees
In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and
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
I'm interested in learning more about performance differences *other*
than resolution and dynamic range between new and previous generation
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
Dave writes ...
... 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, ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
scratches ... that
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 scanners have
31 matches
Mail list logo
