Now, I can live with that attitude although I have learnt that in some cases
it best to just let it happen.
I can cook, I can wash and I can clean house but just because I can do these
things is no reason not to allow my wife to automatically do these for me.
After all, she does a tolerably good job at those tasks that women were
designed to do and only requires the occasional reminder to fetch refills
from the fridge.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 14 August 2004 14:45
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Autofocus using Vuescan
Oh, Moose, Moose, Moose...
The Minolta 5400 autofocuses just fine, thank you. There have been a few
occasions, however, when I have felt that focusing manually produced an ever
so slightly sharper scan. Could well be my imagination.
This whole subject came up probably because I have a natural distrust of
allowing a machine of any sort to make a decision that I can make for
myself. (Part of the reason, I'm sure, why I despise computers.) If I can
override the machine's judgment with my own, I'm pretty apt to do so, which
is why I prefer to manually focus the scanner. It comes down to doing
something, not because it is really necessary, but JUST BECAUSE I CAN.
Besides, it takes less than 10 seconds to pick a high contrast area of
importance and focus on it, far less time than I usually spend fiddling with
that hystericalgram, or historicalgram, or whatever that bumpy,
graphy-looking thing is, and moving the little slider hickies for all those
other adjustments I'm allowed the privilege of making.
Hell, if, like long, long ago, they had put a lever on the steering column
of the OM-4Runner that allowed me to advance and retard the ignition timing
as I drive, I would use it regularly. I hate the new TV because there's no
fine tuning knob. It may not need one, but I do. My wife's Trailblazer has
automatic headlights. I hate when that happens. I'm not so dumb I can't
tell when it's dark. The world today is full of these annoyances!
In conclusion, I am contrary and unlikely to get any better. Maybe I'm a
control freak. Could that be why I use an old, out-dated camera system --
because it lets me do things my way?
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from Moose : --------------
> I suppose I am being a PIA here.
>
> If I designed a film scanner that required manual focusing for best
> results in any but the most extraordinary circumstances, I would feel
> quite incompetent.
>
> - I would have control over optical design and thus depth of field and
> field curvature.
>
> - I would know the characteristic shape of film in slide mounts of
> various kinds and in the strip film holder I designed.
>
> - I could specify how film is placed in the scanner, so that the
> emulsion side would be known.
>
> - It is technically pretty easy to measure the location of the face of
> the film., either at the center, or sampled across the frame.
>
> Given that info, how in Heaven's name could I create a design that
> didn't have proper focus across the whole frame? Sheer incompetence?
> Bloodymindedness?
>
> People have been building film scanners for some time now. Most
> maufacturers, certainly including Minolta, have been through several
> design generations. This is not, as they say, rocket science, just
> rather common engineering.
>
> My lowly Canoscan 2720 dpi scanner auto focuses perfectly every time as
> far as I can see. Grain in the center is clear and and sharp as is grain
> at the edges.
>
> As far as I can see, anybody who has to manually focus their new scanner
> is in one of the following situations:
>
> - Has a defective scanner and should send it back for repair/replacement.
>
> - Has a defectively designed scanner and should return it for refund. I
> find it hard to believe this is true of the Minolta 5400, but who knows.
>
> - Is operating the scanner incorrectly.
>
> - Has become convinced to worry about correcting something that isn't in
> error in the first place.
>
> I know I would not stand for being charged good money for a scanner I
> had to focus manually. Scanning is time intensive enough as it is,
> without adding an unnecessary and time consuming task. Back it would go.
>
> A highly opinionated Moose
>
> Chris Barker wrote:
>
> >Dear All
> >
> >I have taken more interest in the AF capability of my Minolta 5400
> >scanner since Walt muttered dark imprecations about its needing to be
> >focused manually. I now sometimes take Walt's advice and focus
> >manually with the Minolta software. However, I have also taken more
> >interest in the focus cross in Vuescan's Preview window. Ed Hamrick
> >has confirmed that it is the place where AF will take place (it was not
> >clear to me from the instructions for Vuescan).
> >
> >Accordingly, my recent practice of dragging the focus cross to a
> >contrasty part of the image *has* been of practical in use in improving
> >the focus of my scans. I still use Minolta's software when Vuescan is
> >defeated by the colour of one of my slides or negatives (pretty rare)
> >and so will focus manually.
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|