Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets

["Alan Tyson" <AlanTyson@bknowl.freeserve.co.uk>]

I have a Scanwit 2720s, with which I am well pleased. It's
much the best budget scanner, by all accounts.

However, even with Ed Hamrick's Vuescan (a nearly essential
$40 accessory for most scanners) you can exert only limited
control over its initial output. You'll get its own
automatic exposure setting whatever you do. You can save the
'raw' scanner data, and play with it afterwards, but there's
little or nothing you can do to control the content of that
raw file. You can't expose for the shadows specifically, or
the highlights, for example. Vuescan allows you to extract
the best from the raw data, once you've got it.

So if you're into subtleties like accurate calibration, you
may need to spend more money than you would on the Scanwit,
to get more control over the scanner.

Good luck,

Alan T


----- Original Message -----
From: <BHannaford@aol.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Cc: <BHannaford@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets


> I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so
I'll ask a question
> that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does
it make to purchase
> one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for
calibrating a new
> scanner?  I have well in excess of 1000 slides to
archive--about equal
> numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost
$40 and $29
> respectively.
>
> Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets
for calibration, or
> is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker,
simpler,etc) way to keep the
> scanner in calibration?
>
> BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer
ScanWit 2720s is at the
> top of my list.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bruce
>