For Moose images #19 appears a little undersaturated and #17 even more
so. But that aside they appear to be fine scans.
I have a newly acquired V700 but I have yet to scan a single piece of
film. However, I can attest to the use of film height adjusters in the
film holders. These are little plastic buttons about 10x20mm that snap
into the holder frame at four points near the periphery. The adjusters
can be left out or installed in one of two positions which is determined
by rotating the adjuster 180 degrees. When the adjuster is out the film
height is 2.5mm above the scanner window. Installing the adjusters
raises the height to either 3.0 or 3.5mm depending on position. I've
seen some sample scans with the adjusters in different positions but I'm
hard pressed to see much of a difference in the scans.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> I'm agreeing with Chuck, here.
>
> And I'm agreeing with you [cataclysmic music as image of Earth being
> torn apart as it drops into a black hole. :-) ] - and with Chuck.
>
>> Group B illustrates several film "problems".
>>
>
> It's just film, focus, lens, camera (mirror slap?, ?), steadiness,
> and/or scan problem or a combination of those factors that results in an
> image far worse than it should be to be used as an exemplar of its type.
>
> I don't have a V700. However, before buying a Canon 9950F, I looked
> closely at the reviews of both at photo-i. I came to the conclusion that
> the V700 might be capable of just a shade more detail resolution, but
> that the difference was so small as to mean nothing in practical use. My
> sense was that dynamic range was essentially the same. I picked the
> Canon based on other factors.
>
> I've scanned Portra 400NC and it's way better than this image would
> indicate. I just scanned some on the 9950F @ 2400 dpi, using VueScan.
> This is the original 400NC, not the new stuff that I understand scans
> even better. 35mm film scanned using an ICC color profile I made with
> VueScan and an IT8 target. They were then downsampled using FM SI Pro to
> the same effective dpi as Wayne's group B image.
>
> As I and others have explained before, all digitally captured images,
> including film scans, require sharpening to make all the detail they
> capture visible. This is even more the case with flatbed scanners than
> dedicated film scanners. So these images have been sharpened in two
> steps, once as part of NR using NeatImage and once using FM
> IntelliSharpen II. I also made a small Curves adjustment.
>
> I don't have any 400NC images of crowds of people, but I do have them of
> crowds of foliage and flowers,
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=691_19_r1016dpi_ii.jpg>
> and.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=691_17_r1016dpi_ii.jpg>
>
> I don't know for sure, but I'd guess these would compare pretty
> favorably with images taken at the same time with an E-510. Proper
> comparison images from 6x7 400NC should beat them both for detail. I
> also scanned them @ 4800 dpi. Downsized to the same size and similarly
> processed, one 4800dpi scan had a little more detail and the other about
> the same as the lower rez scans.
>
>> Number one issue that I see is a narrow Dmax scan which forced noise in the
>> shadows to increase too greatly. It looks like the scanner was underexposing
>> and Vuescan's curves adjustment (most likely auto) was correcting things so
>> much you didn't see where the actual scan exposure was actually at. We must
>> remember that a digital scanner is a digital camera with the same
>> requirements and limitations in exposure that any digital camera has.
>>
>
> It looks to me like the Black Point may not have been at 0%. I've found
> that scanning color neg. film on the 9950F, setting Black Point above 0%
> does troublesome things to deep shadow. It also appears White Point may
> have been off, leading to blocked highlights. With Vuescan and CN film,
> I've found that using Neutral Color Balance setting, BP of 0% and WP of
> 0-0.1% generally gives a nice distribution of tonal range across the
> histogram. Sometimes, specular or other really out of range highlights
> will require either WP up to almost 1% and/or adjustment of the
> Brightness setting to put mid tones where they belong.
>
>> The second thing I noticed was an incorrect adjustment for the film base.
>> When scanning negative color films, one must not just go for balancing the
>> mid-tones, but also balance for a different gamma across the entire
>> spectrum. Some scanner software does this better than others and I've
>> pulled much hair out (I have plenty more) attempting to get good scans from
>> color negs with Vuescan. This is one area where the Nikon Scan software
>> does a phenominal job and saves me much grief.
>>
>
> I'm not sure why some people seem to have so much trouble scanning CN
> film with VueScan. Perhaps in not understanding that the process and
> settings really need to be different? Maybe because the reversal
> reverses highlight and shadow issues? Base colors?
>
> You can get good results for the film base either with the built in
> adjustments for many older Kodak films, or by sampling a piece of clear
> base within VueScan for any film.
>
> The real solution to the larger issue of gamma and film toes and
> shoulders, from my perspective, is ICC profiles. These may be built
> using existing film base settings, where they exist in VueScan. For
> those and all other films, setting film film base to generic both when
> making the profile and when scanning film using it will correct for both
> base and curve at once.
>
> The above images look pretty true to life to me with no color adjustment
> at all after scanning with a profile. As 160NC and 400NC are carefully
> balanced by Kodak to have the same color characteristics, I use a
> profile from 160NC for both.
>
>> The third thing that jumped out at me is the yellow cast in Group B. This
>> may be totally related to my second observation, but it could also be due to
>> the notorious yellowing of the old Mamiya lenses. I noticed that this was
>> an RB67 shot, but you did not reveal the vintage of the lens. (or maybe you
>> did, and I just don't know my model descriptions well enough. From
>> experience with my classic silver-nosed Zuikos, this yellowing does actually
>> affect the reds and not necessarily in a positive way.
>>
>
> Once again, it would be possible to make separate profiles for lenses
> with different color characteristics. I know it may sound like a pain,
> but it's really quite easy and the advantages of time saved in scanning
> and post and the increased color accuracy are enormous.
>
>> Through minimal adjustments I can get Group B to mimick Group A, but the
>> noise in Groub B is outrageous. I come back around to a bad scan. What you
>> are seeing is NOT grain, but noise. A 2400dpi scan of Portra 400NC is not
>> going to have enough grain to be an issue--especially in a downsized image.
>>
>
> I agree, it's not grain. What combination of scanning software settings
> and post processing created it I don't know. Even at full pixel,
> 4800dpi, the grain is modest and easily corrected, if desired.
>
>> I also question the focus accuracy of the scanner. This reminds me of scans
>> I got with my old Coolscan II.
> I do seem to recall some discussion of such issues with height spacers and/or
> film holders on the V7xx scanners. As with their film scanners, Canons don't
> seem to have DOF issues.
>
>
>> Of course, Wayne could be yanking our chain.
>>
> If so, it worked.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1761 - Release Date: 11/1/2008
> 7:56 PM
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
