Jerry, I'd suggest you find another photographer with another scanner (this
List might help you--if there are any fellow-Dutchmen about, please pitch
in). If the same source-film comes out clean, then we *know* where the
problem is. I think that Acer-NL might be "weasleing," and that needs to
stop. Soon!
Whatever the problem *is*, it *is* a problem. Forward your results to Hondo
Lo, too. From 3,000 miles away, I can't offer much more--but stay in there!
:-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Oostrom, Jerry" <Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: "'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'" <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:26:39 +0200
>
>Here are some of the scans I promised.
>
>I made them by attaching the scanner to another current outlet group, but
>it
>did not change things. I also swapped the negative to show you the error IS
>in the scanner, not the negative (largest yellow band still appears at the
>right side).
>
>Here they are in the
>dirctory:
>
>The film scans were made using Vuescan 7.1.3, the newest version yesterday.
>I set:
>* the Vuescan settings to default,
>* used a scan resolution of 675dpi and resampled the image to a
>quarter its size (corresponding to 337 dpi) using Picture Window Pro 3.0.
>The crop file was saved from Picture Window Pro as a jpg at 100% quality
>The raw scan file was also downsampled using PWP and may as a result have
>obtained a color profile (perhaps sRGB, didn't take the time to check
>that).
>My mistake. However, you will still see the banding if you convert it to a
>positive scan. BTW. the raw scan file is still in 16bit mode.
>
>Now if you compare this to the flatbed scan from the print I received from
>the printing service you know that the print shows much more color
>information AND has no banding! Unfortunately, they just crop wrong!#$%
>
>Film: Kodak Supra 400, shot at ISO320, me leaning almost over the car with
>a
>wide-angle.
>The whole roll was shot at ISO320, but this particular negative seems more
>over-exposed.
>Except for the yellow bands and strange color I obtained a scan with a very
>nice soft! grain pattern.
>
>The crop file:
> 162k
>
>The raw tiff 48bit file:
> 858k!!!
>
>The nice flatbed scan with the wrong crop but NO banding:
> 132k
>(also PWP'd and saved at 100% jpg quality)
>
>So is it user error, is it scanner error (bad lamp / bad CCD) or is it me
>pushing the envelopes of what a decent scanner can do?
>
>
>Thank you all for your interest, I've used you comments to make my point at
>Acer NL,
>
>Jerry
>
>
>BTW. All good intentions and manners aside: Mr. Honda Lo has become very
>silent for weeks now. The same goes for the dutch contact person, whom I've
>mailed several times (always received a return receipt, but unfortunately
>that does not prove much). I am getting frustrated enough to write to the
>bosses / managers / colleagues of this dutch contact person (whose email
>addresses I got from Mr. honda Lo), just not there yet and still hoping for
>some help from Acer NL. Are they just waiting for my 90 days warranty over
>the previous repair to pass?
>This mail is Bcc'd again to both Honda Lo and the dutch contact person.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:52 PM
> > To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
> >
> > The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it
> > has
> > been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed
> > negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO
> > 320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more
> > overexposed than others. The print from the printing service is OK
>though,
> > I
> > could send a flatbed scan of it (the only problem is their cropping,
>they
> > took off parts of the left door!@#$%).
> >
> > Anyway, before you all start thinking I am in error here, I think I'll
> > send
> > a raw scan downsampled to the list (I'll send only the link) so you can
> > see
> > for yourself if it's me or the Scanwit.
> >
> > The scanner does not work OK on normally-exposed materials in the sense
> > that
> > even though the errors are much less visible, they are still there, most
> > noticeably on even coloured or light colored parts of a scan from
>negative
> > and on dark colored parts of a positive. Its ruining the wedding shots
>we
> > have taken from our family.
> >
> > Thank you for your interest,
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > > info & comparisons
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
