Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan - slightly OffTopic



Tony,

Thanks for the reply.  I though if anyone had been pushing the envelope
with Vuescan, it would be you :-)

> I have an S50 as a pocket camera. I wanted something to do digitally
> what my Rollei 35S has done for 25yrs.

A Minolta CLE in my case....

> You're right to want to use Vuescan for processing its RAW files,
> Canon's FVU is unspeakably atrocious, and with the S50's files is
> stupidly limited to changing only white balance. GOK what the point of
> that is. Bizarre.
>
> I have to do a fair amount of post-processing in PS, with 16bit TIFF's
> from VS - adjust levels, increase saturation, drop to 8bit/ch, use
> Colour Washer. But it's the best workflow I've found.
>
> But note that RAW files from an S50 are nothing like as rich,
> versatile and wonderful as RAW files from a 10D (which I use with the
> excellent Capture One - have asked them to please support the S50, but
> no sign of them doing so:( ).
>
> In fact I'm fairly disappointed with the S50. It works very well in
> bright light at ISO100, but things go rapidly to shit in dull/dim
> conditions. The optics have a vaguely smeary character wide open -
> sharp, but a bit vaseline filter. CCD noise @ISO400 is worse than the
> 10D at ISO3200. AF locks on well enough, but isn't precise enough for
> reliable use <2m in poor light. The optical v/f is terrible, like a
> Brownie 127, and wildy inaccurate. Despite the RAW and nice features
> like the histogram review, highlights are easy to blow.

Certainly, from the S50 samples I've seen, I'd agree its not perfect and
way behind a DSLR.  However, to my eyes at least, its output doesn't
seem to look so obviously digital and processed as the other current
compact digicams.

> An s50 with a 10D sensor
> and a proper v/f would be a far, far better camera. If a bit bigger
> and quite a bit more expensive, fine - it'd be worth it. Personally, I
> don't care about zooms on this sort of camera - it's asking too much.

And I thought I was the only one who didn't care about zooms!  I'd even
be happy with a fixed focal length lens if it sorted out the other
shortcomings.  Something based on the Ricoh GR1 would be nice :-)

However, I guess it would be too much of a niche market to develop,
unless it carried a silly price tag like the Epson r/f.

Cheers,



Al Bond

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.