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: 3 year wait



I still contend and repeat:
> if you are scanning large
> numbers of frames, you better have forever to get the job done if you use
> these features on a regular basis.

This does not mean that without those features scanning large nuimbers of
images is going to be a walk in the park timewise.  The fact is scanning
large quantities of film takes a long time whichever way one does it.  If
you look hard enough, all negatives and transparencies have flaws and
defects; 100% perfection even with features such as ICE and ROC. I would be
so bold as to say that even with the use of ICE and ROC one will still need
to do some spotting and some color correction on onld negatives and
transparencies; thus, the amounts of time fixing old film runs more or less
the same with one's skills and demands being the key determinent as to how
much time will be required.

As for old or new silver halide B&W films, ICE is of no help since the
infared does not work with silver halide; and since there is no color, Roc
is also of little use.

The appearance of grain is as much a function of the resolutions that one
scans at as it is of anything else; and the way it appears is contingent on
such things as grain alising among other things.

My scanners do not have either and I have not encountered the problems you
note in the frequency or amounts you seem to with respect to my films - old
or new.  While such features may be helpful on occassion, I would not make
them the key decisional factor in selecting a scanner

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Op's
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:09 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait




Laurie Solomon wrote:

> >What you have mentioned I would pick the Nikon in the fact that it has
ICE
> cubed. ICE, ROC
> >and GEM. which will become very useful tools  if you want to scan a large
> numbers of
> >images.
>
> >From what I hear, the use of either of those will increase the amount of
> time each scan takes by 25 % or more and the use of both will increase the
> scan times for each frame by even more.  Thus, if you are scanning large
> numbers of frames, you better have forever to get the job done if you use
> these features on a regular basis.

Laurie

If you scan older negs then spotting does become a problem and time
consuming. therefore ICE

Old negs do loose colour  therefore ROC

Grain does show in negs more than tranny

You don't have to use them  - but having them is very convenient - I would
not be without
them

I have used ICE now on the Nikon LS2000  for some 3 years and would not like
to bulk scan
without it. Now have the Minolta SMPro with ice cubes and the higher
resolution shows more
defects than ever - even with ICE on.  I am into scanning my old 120 negs
some stored and
never touched these still have defects.

Trust me   -  and for 3500 neg scans thats a lot of work without ICE.

Rob



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