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: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???



> My point being that if you took the time to remount your
> slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner.

True, but the curvature of film is not always due to the mounting but
can be due to a number of other factors.

> No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film.

Also true, but performance of either or any scanner can be improved and
in some cases even remedied where the curvature is slight by being able
to switch from autofocus the uses the center of the film to manual focus
where you can define the target area of the film so as make some sort of
adjustment for any curvature toward the edges of the film.  My point and
the point of the discussion was not to suggest a workflow that will
minimize the effects of out-of-focus film edges but to note in a
comparative evaluation of the two scanners the features that each has or
lacks.


> If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special
> curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard
> mounts.  Scanners don't use them.

That lens was not specifically for cardboard mounted film but for any
film in any glassless mount that may pop as a result of projector heat.
It did not work on all instances of warping and even caused other
unwanted distortions.


> Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork.  You've
> discovered a weakness in these two scanners.  A very simple
> procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of)
> will cure the problem.

That procedure is not the cure for the problem; but it is a possible
remedy for some instances of the problem but not all since there are
many causes for warping of film.  A more effective solution with some
film scanners that have film holders that use a thin clear plastic or
glass sandwich that encompasses the film chip and holds it flat; but
those sorts of film holders are not available for all film scanners.
Even when they are available, they create problems of their own (e.g.,
dirt and fingerprint collection on the four sides of the glass or
plastic, Newton's Rings, and scratches on the plastic or glass surfaces.

> Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement
> that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning
> (not on these two scanners, though).

What is the point of mentioning something that is inappropriate to the
two film scanners in question; moreover, that was not the point of the
original post or the replies which was to compare the two film scanners
as hardware devices primarily and their scanning software secondarily.
It was not a discussion of scanning workflows and techniques, which one
can carry out independent of any mention of particular scanners.




----Original Message----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
wbgilloolyjr@charter.net
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:20 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???

> I am addressing your comments, directly...
>
> My point being that if you took the time to remount your
> slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner.
>
> No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film.
>
> What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the
> equipment you own or the easiest scan.  You can't have both.
>
> If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special
> curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard
> mounts.  Scanners don't use them.
>
> Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork.  You've
> discovered a weakness in these two scanners.  A very simple
> procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of)
> will cure the problem.
>
> Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement
> that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning
> (not on these two scanners, though).
>
> Mr. Bill
>
>
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and
>> are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your
>> remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts,
>> no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the
>> edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on
>> these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture
>> which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my
>> point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still
>> holds.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> 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.