Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions

["IronWorks" <ironworks@ameritech.net>]

I never thought to try it.  How does it benefit the scan?

I had assumed that the normal pass would gather sufficient information,
especially when it passes multiple times picking up missed or bad data and
then averaging them out.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Nisson" <jdn@bird9.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions


| I'm using a SS4000 which definitely suffers from misalignment on long
| passes.
|
| Why do you never use "long pass?"
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "IronWorks" <ironworks@ameritech.net>
| To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
| Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:52 AM
| Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions
|
|
| > I never use the "long pass" setting.  Instead, I use 2-4 passes in
"Number
| > of Passes" and it works perfectly - no misalignment at all.  I've got
the
| > LS-30 so it should work on the LS-2000 I assume.
| >
| > Maris
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "shAf" <michael@shaffer.net>
| > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
| > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:59 PM
| > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions
| >
| >
| > | Joel writes ...
| >
| > [snipped]
| > | > 3.  When should Options/Long scan not be used.  I assume it is
| > | useful for
| > | > bringing out shadow detail, but it seems to me that it would always
| > | be good
| > | > to use, since "auto exposure should control blowout.  Are there
| > | situations
| > | > where it might cause problems?
| > |
| > |     I realized for my LS-2000 Coolscan, the 2nd pass would not
| > | properly register with the 1st ... bummer!! ...
| >
| >
|