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: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!



Thanks for an entertaining message.  I presume you are advocating a move the
the LS8000?

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "dickbo" <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
ScanMulti Pro!


> Mr Lamb
> Kindly refrain from becoming a black sheep by purchasing the noble Nikon
> scanner.
>
> To quote in the style of the late great Fred Confuscus...
>
> "Honorable product demonstrate superior characteristics of traditional
> Oriental mindset in all matters relating to Photos Graphos digitius
> reproductionus"
>
> (kindly note the use of latin at the end of the quotation, demonstrating
> that Fred was well ahead of his time on both this issue as well as
> everything else and indeed were he alive today I suspect he would, in open
> debate, eat The Rev Franklin alive - and before lunch too)
>
> I own a NCS4000, and if I remove the standard Nikon negative profile and,
as
> they say over here, 'Go Native', the shadow detail is as good as it gets,
> which together with many more bits than the well known American eight
ball,
> provides all the visual information necessary in order to enable a true
> believer to produce a veritable cascade of golden images - hard copy
wise -
> as you say in the Americas.
>
> By the way I do assume you are a rational man and always shoot using
> negative stock, which in turn would make it quite unnecessary to ever
> multisample greater than X2.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
> To: <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:16 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
> ScanMulti Pro!
>
>
> Well, I've just done it.  I cancelled my replacement Multi Pro until we
all
> get to the bottom of this grain issue.  I really want to get to a
definitive
> answer before committing to spend my hard earned cash on what will be an
> investment for the next few years.
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "david/lisa soderman" <scapes@wi.net>
> To: <simon@sclamb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:50 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
> ScanMulti Pro!
>
>
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > I'm back.
> > There were several questions and comments that various folks had to say
> re:
> > the sample scans that I recently posted.
> > I'll try to respond to everything at one time.  I hope this works out.
> >
> > First, no I did not do the scans at the same time.  Back around
> Thanksgiving
> > time, I had the Nikon LS8000 for a short time.  I just happened to save
a
> > few of the test scans.  I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
> > w/ICE.  I think there was even a 4000ppi scan w/VueScan & Ed's IR
> cleaning.
> > The VueScan one was the only one that I did set at "superfine scan"
mode.
> > (No choice w/VueScan).  Honestly, I didn't notice banding in my type of
> > "people" portraiture.  Then again, I didn't test the unit for an
extended
> > period of time.  If I had only known, I surely would have kept the
Nikon.
> >
> > In mid-December, I exchanged the Nikon unit for the Minolta Scan Multi
> Pro.
> > At the time, I was "gun shy" from all the negative reports coming in re:
> the
> > Nikon unit.  Also at the time, there weren't many reports on the
Minolta.
> > What little feedback there was - was all great.  It was the busiest time
> of
> > year for my business.  By the time I actually got the unit out of the
box
> > and began testing it, the store said it was too late to return it.  I
> never
> > filled out the warranty card; the scanner is basically brand new.  What
to
> > do next?   (hear the violins in background)
> >
> > I decided to try scanning that same neg that I used the Nikon on.  I was
> > immediately horrified when I saw the grainy/gritty look...especially on
> the
> > faces of people!  Also, there was scads of dust, dirt, debris and
> scratches
> > everywhere.  ICE helped, but did not clean it all up.  Also, the
> > grainy/gritty look was still there.  Any scanning without ICE on this
> > machine would be a time consuming extravaganza of cleanup.
> >
> > I never did use 4800ppi on the Minolta, because of it's interpolation on
> 6x6
> > negs.  So, everything I posted was @ 3200 ppi.
> >
> > No, I haven't ever used GEM on the scans to minimize grain.  I tried and
> > tried...but still haven't ever seen the "progress bar" even begin to
move
> a
> > fraction of an inch  - even after 45 minutes.  I simply gave up on GEM
> with
> > the Minolta.
> >
> > And no, I haven't tried the "defocusing" idea yet.  I've been wasting
lots
> > of my time on this machine lately.  The only reason that I've recently
had
> > this much time to fiddle around with it is because I've been home sick
> with
> > a bad cold.  But as soon as I recover, I've got to make a decision re:
> what
> > to do with this thing.  First, I need to know whether this is typical
> > performance for negs...or whether I have a defective unit.  Then I'll
know
> > whether to sell it...or have it repaired first; then sell it.
> >
> > I've yet to hear *any* input from anyone else who scans negs with the
> > Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  So I can only assume that everyone else out
there
> > is scanning transparencies.  Actually, no that I think about it, Jack
> Phipps
> > from Applied Science Fiction mentioned that he has made good neg scans
on
> > it.  I wonder if he's seen the posted scans.  I must remember to send
him
> a
> > CD with full rez samples.
> >
> > I find it interesting that when I posted my 1st batch of scans a few
days
> > ago, (Minolta scans only), nobody found the grain objectionable.  Only
> when
> > placed next to the Nikon scans did anyone complain.  (Myself included!)
> >
> > When I find time, I'll try the "defocusing" idea - even though I think
> it's
> > preposterous to need to do so on such a costly box.
> > Also, I would like to point out that the "crud"/grain/noise is still
> > present...even at lower resolutions like 1600ppi.  I don't know if I'll
> have
> > time to illustrate that though.
> >
> > Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
> > welcome.
> >
> > Joyfully,  -david soderman- <><
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title
> or body
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.