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)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120(comments verywelcome please)
- From: "Simon Lamb" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:38:13 +0100
- In-reply-to: <3CB95C36.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Unsubscribe: mailto:email@example.com
OK, here is where I have got to. I downloaded the 5.5.2 version of
Silverfast and compared results using that and Insight. I have now managed
to get some great scans, mostly using SF. I have got some great Delta 100,
Scala, Provia and E100VS scanned images and I am very pleased with the
results. I also upgraded to the latest firmware version, since the carrier
got stuck in the scanner using the preview all frames option in SF.
However, whatever I use, Portra 160VC 6X6 is not good at all. I have
scanned this on my LS30 and it looks great. I tried it with SF and Insight
and had to work at it but eventually got the image looking reasonable.
However, the SF and Insight images are covered in white specks. It is not
dust, there is too much over the entire image area. It is not noise either,
just white specks all over the place. Anyone else successfully scanned
Portra 160VC using the SS 120?
As a direct comparison to the Flextight Photo, I scanned one E100VS image on
the Flextight and it did not need any correction for colour etc, just a bit
of sharpening. It took me about ten minutes to get the SS 120 scan using
Silverfast to the same degree of colour, contrast etc. accuracy. So what I
gain in scan speed I am losing on the manipulation.
However, I guess either scanner takes the same net time to accomplish the
task, I just have to think less with the Flextight. So I think I may keep
the SS 120. OK, so I may have to do some spotting etc. as it does not have
ICE, but I genuinely think it needs less than the same image scanned on my
LS30. I scanned one image with a great big fingerprint on it and it did not
show on the scanned image, which was sharp as a tack. I know my LS30 would
have picked it up in the scan.
I do have one big issue with the medium format carrier. I use 6X6 and have
many strips with four frames on a strip. In that configuration, it is
impossible to scan slide 2 or 3 without cutting the strip as the second
frame in from the end never lines up correctly in the green marks. This
will be a pain and I do not want to cut the strips. So, two questions:
1. Will the carrier be redesigned to allow scanning of four 6X6 images
without cutting etc?
2. Will there be a glass carrier for 6X6 as sometimes the film does not
look completely flat in the supplied carrier.
Well, that's it for now. I am going to take a couple of images I produced
this afternoon into the dealer and see if the Flextight can get to the same
stage in less time. But, in the end, the SS 120 is 40% of the price of the
Flextight Photo, and that is a big saving, especially when the difference in
images is hard to distinguish.
Thanks to Art and everyone else for helping me and offering advice. Just
the two questions above to go ;-)
On 14/4/02 11:38 am, "Arthur Entlich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> I am pleased you have brought these issues into the public list because
> there are people here who have more experience with Insight than I,
> especially in terms of how it functions with the SS120.
> Further, I had another thought. It is possible that there are aspects
> of the software that work better in the PC environment than the Mac.
> Just to make it clear, to avoid any flame war, I am not implying that
> the PC is a better platform for scanning, or color management, or
> whatever. What I am suggesting is that perhaps some aspect of the Mac
> OS causes differing results with Insight, and that either there are
> adjustments that can be made within the Mac operating system or Insight,
> which I would not be aware of, which can remedy some of the problems you
> are experiencing.
> Therefore, the reported experiences which seem so divergent, might be as
> a result of different platforms or OS. Someone who is running an SS120
> with Insight on a Mac might be able to provide you with some guidance
> which I am unable to if that is the case, since all my experience with
> Insight has been under the PC Windows OS platform.
> Simon Lamb wrote:
>> 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 email@example.com, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or