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]

Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...





On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, tflash wrote:

> on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote:
> 
> >> You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
> >> process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
> >> dialog boxes.
> > 
> > 
> > Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with Austin,
> > though enjoying the dialog, nonetheless.
> 
> > The point you make above (and the steps you elaborate
> > in the following paragraphs) are fairly typical for
> > other film scanner drivers also.  Which is one of the
> > reasons I generally disregard scanner "speed" comparisons.
> > 
> > 1. Time to "set up" the scan often exceeds the time
> > taken to actually perform the scan, at least for the
> > way I work.
> > 
> > 2. Time spent fiddling with the image in Photoshop
> > afterwards completely dwarfs the scan time + scan
> > setup time.
> 
> Rafe,
> 
> I don't have enough experience with other film scanners to know how other's
> operate. I wondered if they were any better or worse. Perhaps I owe my leaf
> an apology. ;-)
> 
> On personal level though, regarding scan time Vs Photoshop time, they are
> two different beasts. I love PS, and scanning is drudge work. It's as if you
> owned a Ferrari (PS) and every time you wanted to take it for an hour drive,
> you had to put in an hour of maintenance first (scanning).
> 
> Thus, I don't try to get perfectly corrected scans. I just capture a 16-bit
> raw scan, which I expand in PS. Full resolution, raw (HDR) color scans, can
> take over an hour with the Leaf. I still think it's a time saver to do it
> that way, cause if I ever want to revisit the image, to develop it
> differently, I don't need to rescan. I've already got a 16-bit, max
> resolution file (IOW, the best the scanner is capable of giving) archived.


Well, I do believe it's important to ensure 
that the scan itself is as good as possible -- 
it's the foundation on which all else rests.

There's this mantra that capturing the scan 
data in 16 bits obviates all other 
responsibilities at the scanner-driver stage, 
and I've never bought into that.  Seems I 
get by nicely with 24-bit (8 bit/color) scans, 
in spite of all I read here and elsewhere 
about the advantages of 48-bit scans.

There's no question that 48-bit files will 
allow *certain* scan shortcomings to be 
fixed up around later.  OTOH, it's easy enough 
to obtain 48-bit scans that are fatally 
flawed from the get-go.


rafe b.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.