Also, ICE doesn't work with Kodachromes or B+W - the images are not infrared
transparent.
If you have the money, the newish Minolta Multi does 4800 dpi. Otherwise, the
Canon FS4000 seems to be both fast and good.
tOM
On Monday, April 28, 2003 at 9:38
Mark Dapoz <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 KB8CD@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Thanks to all who contributed. I have done a bit of reading and looking at
> > scans. The problem in comparison of scans is that they are not only done
> > with
> > different scanners, they are done by different people. I had thought that
> > ICE
> > is nice, but you guys have about convinced me it a requirement. Some of my
> > slides are older than my Olympus. My research was leading me toward the
> > Coolscan. Seems most of you agree.
>
> If you plan on scanning Kodachromes, you should run a test of the scanner
> using a high contrast slide to see how it behaves. I find the Coolscan IV
> is very bad, it produces very blochy shadows and is extremely flare prone.
> It doesn't matter whether ICE is on or off, and the same results appear with
> both Nikonscan and Vuescan. I've tried the same test on several Coolscan IV's
> and they all show the same problem. I'm going to be sending my scanner back
> to
> Nikon to see what they can do about it. If Kodachrome is important to you, I
> wouldn't recommend buying the Coolscan IV.
> -mark
---------
2003 Jun 28-30 in Ottawa:
http://www.CanadianCameraConference.ca
tOM Trottier, ICQ:57647974 http://abacurial.com
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
+1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.714
"The moment one gives close attention to anything,
even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious,
awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself --
Henry Miller, 1891-1980
< 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 >
|