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)
In the UK the Flextight is £4,700 compared to £2,100 for the SS 120. Quite
a difference still. The LS8000 is £2,700, so a lot nearer. But is it £600
On 14/4/02 5:28 pm, "Dave King" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree with your current observations except I find Insight to reproduce
> any color transparency I have tried pretty well. Also, the 35mm strip
> holder has sprocket hole tabs movable by the "film position slider",
> enabling the film to be positioned side to side with little effort. After
> closing the top piece you have to gently bracket the film position slider
> until the tabs "fall into" the sprocket holes. Perhaps you've already done
> this and still find it fiddly, but I was satisfied with this mechanism.
> The price reduction of the Flextight Photo certainly makes it viable, and
> you may want to consider the Nikon LS-8000 as well.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <email@example.com>
> 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