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: Canon's scanner

Oh Tomas, that would be great.
I would really appreciate if you would mention how much manual post
processing was involved
in each final image and also if it would be possible to send original (scan
out) image aside with your manually corrected.

BTW, did you try it with Fuji Sensia II for slides and Superia for prints ?

I remember I saw CoolScan 4000ED (or IV ED) test in one of the recent issues
of Practical Photography and one fault they discovered it needs special
manual colors correction for
Fuji Superia negative emulsion due to lack of correct profile for this
4-layer film.
What about Canon ?

Your general impression is that it handles better negatives then slides,
right ?
How does it shows up ? (Colors management, sharpness issue, noise level or
whatsoever ?)

Oh, tough decisions....

Best regards, Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of tom
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 15:23
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon's scanner

Hi Alex,

> It's advertised to provide automatic film-type detection. Does it work
well ?
Yes, no problem at all, but i think it is normal for all scanners.

> Does it deliver evenly good results for any common used emulsions for
print/slide ?
Velvia, Provia 100 - very good
Reala      - very good
Provia 400 - a little to grainy for 4000DPI scanners
General y the Canon software seems to be working better with prints

> What about noise levels relatively to his rivals (Polaroid 4000 and
> 4000ED) ?
I am not able to compare, but the noise level is not high

> I read in several reviews that their software is quite stable and useful
Never crashed, very stable and easy to use, weak point is that it is
to scan directly to file.

> (I would use it with PC platform operated by either W 98SE or W 2000)
I am using it with Windows 2000 + notebook 256MB + Photoshop LT and it works
quite well (one full size photo in memory)

> Their FARE feature seems to work
And it works very well, it does not introduce any blurring, and the dust is
removed completely.

> Any working experiences with this unit are welcome.
Main problem is not existing eject button and it seems that blue channel is
more enhanced then the others.
If you like I can send you some scans


Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.