Hi,
I always get sharp results in a small area but corners are awful. To get
perfect results I must divide the full 35mm slide in
8x8 small images and then with Photoshop Photomerge tool, join them
together.
I have bought GEPE glass mounts and results are much better but not perfect
and for scanning thousands of pictures is not a cheap solution.
I know Nikon is super sharp but depth of field is so narrow that you must
waste your time trying to flatten slides before scanning all of them.
Also ICE works much better when slides are perfectly flat and regrettably
they are old and curved.
Scanning at 4000dpi with Vuescan takes time and then you must crop and
finetune your images (shadow, highlight, etc...)
Now imagine taking perfect exposed iamges of your slides in RAW mode and
then automatic postprocessing with C1 using superb colour ICC profiles for
5500ºK!!!
I think it will be very fast! Thank you for your offer Chris. I am pretty
sure your scanner will output better focused images becasue it has wider
depth of field.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:25 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: result of slide to digital using E-1
> David Irisarri wrote:
>
>>Hey great trial!!!
>>
>><snip> I am fed up with my LS-4000 and its low depth of field. All my
>>slides always are out of focus.
>>
>>
> I know the Nik*ns have shallow depth of field, one reason I didn't buy
> one. On the other hand, it seems most users get sharp results over most
> of the frame most of the time. Have you considered that yours may simply
> be out of adjustment or defective and in need of servicing?
>
>>I can imagine taking photos to 500 slides and the process all of them in
>>Phase ONE C1, wow!!!! Ultrafaaaasst.
>>
>>
> But how good? At 2560x1920 pixels for 4:3 ratio, The E-1 works out to
> 1800 dpi copying the full 36 mm width of 35 mm film, 2000 dpi if cropped
> to 24x32 mm. That will leave a lot of the detail on the film behind.
> More than enough for the web and enough for modest sized prints,
> although I wonder how they would look compared to those from higher
> resolution scans.
>
> There's lots of different opinions of how much scanner resolution is
> needed to capture all the detail on film, but the lower end is somewhere
> around 4000 dpi.
>
> I'm not trying to say that you will or won't be happy with the results.
> Just doing the kind of analysis I would do for myself before undertaking
> the project.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|