Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120 (comments verywelcome please)
I did not try Silverfast, although Vuescan did produce some better results.
I take your point about the Flextight, although I always get slides in
strips and mount them myself when I have selected the keepers. There is a
strip Flex holder that allows up to four to be scanned at once, you need to
turn the strip around to do the last two frames of a six frame strip. There
is also a three frame 6X6 holder (actually it is a 6X18 holder).
Obviously scanning a back catalog of mounted slides would be a headache.
I will try scanning the Portra as a RAW file and see if that makes a
difference. To be honest, it amazes me that a £30 piece of software such as
Vuescan can produce a scan in TIFF format that is vastly superior to
Insight. I guess Insight just got the profile wrong, but as I said, Vuescan
produces superior scans on Provia, Scala and Delta.
As part of this workflow I am looking to minimise the Photoshop manipulation
time required, and Insight doesn't look like it will allow that. I will
download the Silverfast demo and try that too. I do not want to open the
Silverfast Ai supplied with the scanner in case they will not take it back
should I return it.
Thanks for your reply.
On 14/4/02 10:07 am, "Lloyd O'Daniel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your
> experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight
> to Silverfast for routine scans, although we primarily scan chromes. The
> only negs I've done on his machine are circa 1980 Kodacolor and VPS
> 645's. In that case, I did raw scans there and did the processing here
> with Silverfast HDR or Photoshop. Results were very good. Have you tried
> If/when I can afford it, I might go for a Flextight Photo as well. They
> are considered a cut above, and priced accordingly. The only caveats I
> have with that scanner are I believe you have to unmount 35mm slides and
> cut negs individually or into very short strips. From a film handling
> and storing viewpoint for me, that would be a headache.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Simon Lamb
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120
> (comments verywelcome please)
> I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS
> 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and
> supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made
> with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be
> welcome. ____________________
> I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results.
> The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The
> resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or
> even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it
> that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in
> general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic
> slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good
> scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS.
> As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100
> and Delta 400 I gave up. The scans where very dark, the black point
> stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end
> had been pushed up against a wall.
> So, I moved on to using Vuescan. The Provia scanned well although the
> colour accuracy was not too good. My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a
> better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as
> detailed. The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans
> I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail.
> The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights. The Porta
> 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling
> all over the scan. I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight
> term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has
> difficulty with the Portra emulsion. A shame, since my LS30 scans it
> very well.
> So where am I now. Well, the SS 120 can obviously produce detailed
> scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them,
> especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work. I
> am not really happy about relying on third party software because should
> Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be
> difficult to get the results I need. The carriers are fiddly. In many
> cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is
> impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier
> slightly undone. Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot
> of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted, and some were
> just too far out to be workable.
> I think I will return the SS 120 and try the Flextight Photo. I did
> find when comparing it side by side with the SS 120 in the store that
> the Photo just about always reproduced the image as near as possible to
> the original colour, contrast etc. The built in film profiles seemed to
> be accurate. It may take twice as long to scan, but I may save that
> additional time not having to do so much in Photoshop.
> Your comments on my findings would be welcomed. I know a lot of people
> use the SS 120, so either I am doing something wrong or they just put
> the effort in to correct images post scanning.
> I was using Insight 5.5.1.
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or