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: FilmGet FS103



Caro Alessandro:

I am a proudly user of the Canon fs 4000, and have tested vuescan and
filmget 1.03
After upgrading to 1.03 filmget I only tested vuescan two or three times.

For new negatives and slide film I use the Canon software. My workflow is
scnning at 2000 dpi all the shots of the roll, FARE at medium set, and then
the usual adjustments in photoshop: crop, levels and usm. It take 3 minutes
per frame. I manage the twain softsare trough twbatch. a free sofware that
saves the files to disk in tiff format, saving memory.

Scannig all the shots at 4000 dpi is very slow with my computer (around
13-15 min each).

Color correction is usually very good with filmget, and I print the best
shots with Fuji Frontier at a good lab, here in Buenos Aires.

The quality of copies, at 15x21(6"x9") and 20x30 (8x12) is excelent.

For exhibition prints, I rescanned at 4000 dpi to print at 30x 45 cm
(12x18")

Vuescan proved a very good software with old slides where the "restore
fading" recover the original colors. In normal work vuescan is very slow.

I downlownded the last upgrade and I will give another chance to vuescan in
the next roll fo negatives.

Best regards

Jorge Talkowski
talko@pinos.com
http://members.tripod.com.ar/talko/




----- Original Message -----
From: "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@inferentiadnm.com>
To: <talko@pinos.com>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:37 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: FilmGet FS103


> Hullo, one more Canon user here ;-)
>
> As for Vuescan, I've seen a few "improved infrared with Canon FS4000" in
the
> notes for the last releases.
> I've tried it myself and decided to keep going the hard way (i.e., raw
file
> without infrared cleaning, and then manual spotting) as there was a small,
> but noticeable, loss in sharpness. YMMV (I scan and print only the very
best
> of my production, so I can afford to be picky and spend more time on each
> photo)
> That said, using FilmGet was *much* worse in any sense...
>
> Alessandro Pardi
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Franklin [mailto:franklin@shootingshark.com]
> > Sent: luned 23 settembre 2002 04.41
> > To: alessandro.pardi@inferentiadnm.com
> > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: FilmGet FS103
> >
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:20:14 -0400, rylatt@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for my one and only response.
> >
> > No problem.  I haven't noticed too many people "around here" talking
> > about the Canon in the couple of months I've been monitoring the list.
> > It just might be you and me. :-)
> >
> <skip>
> >
> > The last time I tried VueScan it didn't properly support the FARE
> > scratch/dust removal of the scanner.  I need to check hamrick.com to
> > see if it's been fixed.  When it supports FARE, I'll try it again.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> 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.