swisspace wrote:
>How brave are you feeling, fancy posting some links to slides
>(preferably kodachromes) you have posted stating which scanner you used
>so I can do a full evaluation,
>
Alright, here are shots of from the two rolls of film I shot in Havasu
Canyon in 1970. About half are Kodachrome and the rest are another
chrome. See if you see any big difference that says one can be scanned
ok and another not <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/>.
These were scanned a while ago on a Canon FS2710 at 2720 dpi, using
VueScan. Looking at them now, I think I oversharpened some. Otherwise,
they look pretty good to me. I've never understood the trouble I hear
about scanning Kodachrome. I don't know whether I am particularly
talented and/or lucky in my choice of hardware and software and my
ability to use them. Whatever combo it may be, scanning various sorts of
slides just doesn't make any real difference.
Anybody know which is which in these samples? Interesting how things
change in our lives. Back in 1970, I had a Nikon Ftn with a single lens,
Nikkor 50/2. Film and processing were expensive, I only had one lens and
the topography limited the angles of view, so I didn't take very many
pictures. If I were to go there today for the same length of time, I
can't imagine coming out with less than hundreds of images. I can
particularly remember things I could see, and wanted to shoot, but that
would just be too tiny on film. Not much later, the Nikon went for an
OM-1, and the second lens was a 1002.8.
Because these are pictures from a classic destination and a classic trip
in my life, I've just rescanned them with the FS4000 at 4000 dpi. The
lower falls changed dramatically a few years later when the big
overhanging mineral deposits fell off. Pixel peeping, 4000 dpi clearly
pulls a bit more detail out, but you wouldn't see the difference at
anything less at least a 12x18 print. Other than that, color, contrast,
etc. are quite comparable, as I would expect with successive models from
the same maker.
Most of these shots are in direct late May Arizona sunshine, so the
subjects had a very wide range of brightness. Neither scanner seems to
have any trouble capturing the full range that is on the film. I'm going
to be doing some more playing, and may discover other differences, but I
can already say they will be subtle.
The IR channel of the Kodachromes does show more image detail than is
usual with other slide films, as one would expect, but it doesn't seem
to cause any trouble that I can see. Of course, I'm not using ICE or
FARE, but whatever Ed puts in Vuescan, for dust removal.
If these don't answer you questions, as regards one brand fof film
scanner, perhaps you could be more specific about what kind of problems
you are encountering.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|