Sorry, Lynn-- my pen flew too fast. I assumed that by 16x, _highest
resolution_ was meant No, I do not scan 16 times, only 3, but at
highest resolution. I _think_ I see improvement in noise levels
then, but I can't convince myself that doing more than 3 scans buys me
anything. But Ed Hamrick _seemed_ to be saying in his last
communication that even three scans is overkill, which seems to
contradict earlier statements that multiple scans were good stuff at
highest resolution, but inferior, if only lower resolution was
needed/desired, to single scans at high resolution combined with
compaction to lower resolution.
On the ScanWit 2740S, using ICE and specifying 3 scans actually
results in 6 scans, presumably 3 IR + 3 visual. Also, ICE or not, I
must set focus to Preview Only; if set to focus on both Preview and
Scan, I loose registration and the scan data is useless.
If my negatives are clean, I don't need ICE (StaticMaster brushing is
great). That makes multiple scans much more palatable.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:31:01 +0000, you wrote:
>>I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
>>requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
>>was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
>>as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
>>thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed
>>negatives. Am I all wet on this?
>
>IMHO, yes (no offense intended--you said it first). :-) I have an Acer, but
>without the IR (it's a 2720S). First of all (I haven't been following this
>thread), are you saying you're making 16 passes on underexposed negs? 2-4
>should be more than adequate. I'd start with 1. I also don't know what you
>mean by "seriously underexposed." 1 stop? two? three? These are going to be
>thin, but I've gotten credible results from "very" thin negs (pushed TriX,
>and 4 stops under) with the Acer (I used some tricks). Multiple passes are
>more likely to help noise problems in dense negs and slides (I could be
>wrong on this, of course--but dense is where most of my problems come from)
>
>If the film detail isn't there, it isn't there. You know that, of course. To
>"suck" the most out of it, I think you need to play with the Levels and the
>Curves in Photoshop (or your favorite IP). Noise may in fact be a serious
>problem--reduce it as much as you can in Mira or Vuescan, then try to
>correct in your IP. You may need to scan at several different settings.
>
>If you haven't checked out Pete's website (Photoscientia whatever), do so.
>It's an excellent guide to the Scanwit (Pete didn't like the beta 2740s, be
>advised--that doesn't make it 'bad,' it's just drawn that way :-) ).
>
>I don't know that I've helped, but feel free to contact me if you have
>questions.
>
>Best regards--LRA
>
>>
>>On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:42:23 EDT, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> >You should _never_ need to do the 16x scan pass more than
>> >once. The preview is done in one pass (at low resolution), and
>> >will be used to compute the optimal CCD exposure and cropping.
>> >
>> >All other things can be re-done by pressing the "Scan mem."
>> >button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece
>> >of film twice. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make
>> >sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using
>> >the "Files|Output raw file" option.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Ed Hamrick
>>
>>--
>>Matt Prastein
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
--
Matt Prastein
