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: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software



>At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote:
>>Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or
>>Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively
>>or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my
>>budget even for the future :-( ).
>
>
>BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED.
>It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's
>features.

I have a 233MHz G3 with 640 MB.  My CoolScan IV is fast.  I turn off GEM &
ICE during preview which dramatically speeds up previews, exposure (Master
Gain) and curve redraws.  I especially love the batch scan feature which
allows optimizing each frame before starting final scan.
.
>
>BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to
>remove grain.  The bad thing is that you really need it!  Grain isn't
>too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans.
>Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain.

Same for Kodak Max 400 on the IV (fixed with GEM &/or ICE). Ektachrome (200
or 400?) and Kodachrome 64 have low grain .

>BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an
>incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible
>reduction in sharpness.  I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where
>ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft.  So apparently they can
>work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film.


I've had excellent results with GEM on Kodachrome 64, but results with ICE
vary from batch to batch.


Mike Duncan





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.