Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:08:41 +0800
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs in
Scanning slide and negative is no comparison, slide is ten times
better for sure! Provided you have a good film scanner with
D-range>3.6 and low noise. Scanning slide get accurate color
reproduction, negative never, different negative gives different color
response curve, you can never get the exact color/tone, what you can
do is to adjust for what it looks "good" can't say accurate. So far
all negative are grainy when scanned except the discontinued Ektar 25,
slides has much less grain.
Sorry, C.H., I don't agree with that, not at all. See Moose's comment below.
My experience with my Minolta Scan Elite II is much more in line with Moose's.
FWIW, the software that comes with the Minolta scanners is quite
quite good. In fact, it was one of the deciding factors for me in
buying the scanner.
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:00:44 -0600
From: Steve Goss <stevegoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Microtek 35t?
This is an 1800 dpi slide scanner, and seems to be going for about the
same price as the Olympus ES-10. I know the ES-10 is not well regarded,
but what about this Microtek?
Huh? The E-10 is not well regarded? Wha...????
The E10 is a terrific camera capable of stunning photographs.
As for scanners, the best deal in the galaxy is the Minolta Dimage
III for around $315.
-Stephen
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:07:37 -0800
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs in
That is your experience. Mine is different. Both types of film scan
equally well for me. Using Vuescan with its film specific unmasking for
negative film gives me color balance I find to be just as accurate as
scanning slides. Of course, we know that slide films all have color
balances that are different from each other and different, some quite
different, from what the eye saw in the scene. I am not claiming 'true'
colors, just no more inaccurate than slide film. My experience with a
2700dpi scanner is that grain is about the same, and not a problem at
any reasonable print size, with either type of film, taking into account
film speed factors.
What do you mean by "accurate"? With slide film, one can compare the
scanned image to the slide itself to determine the 'accuracy' of the
scan, but that is simply redefining the source for comparison from the
original scene to the slide. It is theoretically possible for a scan of
a neg to be a more accurate representation of the color of the original
scene than a scan of a slide of the same scene that is true to the
slide, but not to the scene photographed. Considering that light in the
'real ' world is never the same from one moment to the next, this kind
of stuff could only be meaningfully studied in a highly controlled lab
setting. Since I'm interested in a photograph that recreates the image I
have in my mind, I'll skip the lab and go out and smell and photograph
the flowers.
As I said in my last post, scanning is not cut and dried, but quite
variable across hardware, software and user.
Moose
Yup, yup, yup....couldn't have said it better myself.
-Stephen
I agree - I've just completed scanning several hundred images going back up to
20 years old, just selecting some important frames. This was an
horrendous task
due to different film manufacturer (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa), different
emulsions from
each manufacturer and a variety of lighting (daylight, stage,
flash). Most of the
images were colour neg with a few Kodachrome. The Kodachrome was a
breeze, the colour negs were all over the place with colour balance,
fortunately
most of the images included faces so I was able to get a reference
from the skin
tones. The worst film if I remember correctly was Kodak Ektar 1000 (?), the
mask didn't even look like normal colour neg.
I think the scanner you use has a lot to do with it.
-Stephen.
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:42:24 -0800
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighsin
I've used a lot of slide film. I shot it almost exclusively for many
years. Wonderful stuff. People who like it should use it. It has clear
advantages for many uses over negative. I'm just arguing that it isn't
inherently any more color accurate than negative film. I believe there
are at least 3 reasons, other than inherent color accuracy, that many
professionals use slide film.
1. Personal, institutional and industry habit and reproduction equipment
requirements.
2. They and their clients like to look at the film images directly when
evaluating them - for composition, sharpness, etc. in addition to color
accuracy. Loupes, light tables and projectors don't work with negs and
cheap, automated prints are very poor measures of what is actually on
the film.
3. Storage, retrieval and handling are easier with slides. You can just
pick up the sheet holder and see which is which at a glance. For someone
using digital darkroom and storage, either either original form is equal.
Moose, I think one of the reasons that slides are used for a lot of
commercial, pro photography is that clients simply like to look at
chromes. Similar thing in molecular biology.....molec. biologists
would like to see gels, chemists like to see plotter traces, whereas
as molec. biologists would be uncomfortable with that.
-Stephen
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:09:10 +0800
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Vuescan, an HP S20, and me
Yes, Vuescan is much slower than the original software, the post
processing time after scanning is long, it depends on CPU speed, even
a 2.4GHz P4 looks slow. If you have a machine slower than 1GHz, don't
try to scan a 60MB file, it takes a year to complete.
You are forgetting about the PowerMac and the RISC based PowerPC's!
Just as there is more to digital camera image quality than just the
no. of megapixels in the sensor, there is more to computer processing
power than megahertz! But try convincing some folks of either of
those points!
-Stephen
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|