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: Using NikonScan and Vuescan together (was Filmsand scanners going together

Bob Frost wrote:
> Al,
> Thanks for the suggestion. I've just tried this with my Nikon LS4000 -
> turning off color management and setting the preview gamma to 1.0 so that
> the raw tif file is suitable for Vuescan. Then I used Vuescan to color
> process the file, and lo and behold, the final image is better coloured and
> sharper than either the Nikon scans (with color management) or Vuescans. All
> were done with ICE or IR cleaning on.
> Vuescan's IR cleaning seems to soften the images too much, so by this
> method, as you say, we get the best of both worlds it seems. It's too good
> to be true!!
> I've also gone back to Vuescan 7.2.6 . I've tried 7.4 and 7.5 and for my
> scanner they seem worse.
> Has anyone else tried the combination of scanning software?

No! Thanks for the hint, I was not even trying to pass raw files
between versions of Vuescan knowing how incompatible its *.ini
files are. This is a very good news. That means that NikonScan
with its thumbnail ability can be used to preview the roll of film,
make the raw files in a much better speed and free adjustable
output size in pixels, to be later processed by the Vuescan's
exposure and color balance engine. I will give it a try during
the week. We are fortunate that the vast hard disk space is so
available these days.

I have also heard opinions that Vuescans IR cleanup softens the
image and someone has posted examples for this effect last month in
the newsgroup, if memory serves me right. Ed stated that this was a
mistake in the specific release of the algorithm. Personally I never
observed such problems with this algorithm albeit contrary to Ed's
own statement about superiority of the IR over ICE, I have observed
on many occasions that ICE deals better with plastic particles
sticking to the film surface.

These particles may become attached to the film in the Nikon slide
feeder SF-200. This device does not accept any slide magazines and
demands that a pile of slides will be placed in the input tray, where
they are being pressed together by a spring. As a result they rub
on each other while being advanced into the scanner and sometimes
tiny plastic particles will be detached from the mount corners and
probably electrically charged in the process. They may attach
themselves to the film surface. This happens with the Reflecta CS
mounts quite often actually.

Of course, with cardboard mounts in the SF-200 the problem is far
worse. They lint in the slide feeder and they lint heavy.


> Bob Frost.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <al@greenspace.freeserve.co.uk>
> > I'd love to have the Minolta Multi Pro, but it's software is allegedly
> > poor with negs. And if I use VueScan instead, I definitely lose the ICE
> > and GEM features of the original software, right?
> > VueScan's capabilities in these respect are rather of lesser quality,
> > so I'm stuck and can't make a decision.
> Easy solution.  You can do a raw 16 bit (positive) scan to a file in the
> Minolta software, using ICE/ROC/GEM if you want.  You can then use
> Vuescan to remove the mask and work its usual magic to produce the
> final version.
> This way, you can have the best of both worlds!

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.