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: vuescan



I use it regularly with the LS4000 (and sometimes on the 8000 - which I
don't use much anyway).

Especially for bulk scanning thousands of slides, it does a much better job
of getting the exposure spot on.

And most of the time I still find it does a better job than the Nikon
software - which is probably more personal taste than anything

tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka
> Sr.
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:26 PM
> To: tim@KairosPhoto.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: vuescan
>
>
> Software tuned to film seems worth $40 to me.  I use Vuescan
> regularly with
> the Nikon LS-30.  It's preview is admittedly not as accurate and the
> interface perhaps not as convenient as Nikons, but it's main advantage is
> that it will pick up all the highlight and shadow details and not
> clip them,
> and the image can then be adjusted in PS or other graphic
> software in which
> one can see the image much better.
>
> Maris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Haber" <matt@matthaber.com>
> To: <mlidaka@Ameritech.Net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:20 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] vuescan
>
>
> seems like vuescan might be useful, but here are my gripes. maybe
> somebody can set me straight....
>
> my hardware is the nikon ls 8000.
>
> i tried the tryout version...which seems useless for critical
> comparisons, because of the "$40" on the final image. that's my first
> gripe. it may be cheap, but I don't want to spend any $$ unless it will
> improve my result.
>
> second, it seems to take a very long time to scan, render and save,
> compared to the nikon scan software.
>
> It seems to be very kludgy about helping to identify  a particular
> image. It will do preview scans of everything, but that also takes a
> very long time.
>
> its only advantage seems to be the way the software is tuned to the
> film. I use fuji Reala, and it seemed to produce a much better
> preview scan right out of the box. BUT i'm not sure that alone is
> worth it. any thoughts?
>
> mattMatt Haber
> dance, portrait and fashion photography
> http://www.matthaber.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------
> 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
>

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