Thanks for your comments Paul.
>Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame.
Digital GEM is designed to reduce noise, most commonly "grain" in film.
There are times when it will make a very noticeable difference, especially
in skin textures. There is one example at:
that shows a couple about to kiss. It was a
portrait session done by our Chief Scientist, Al Edgar. When the woman saw
the picture, she thought she looked younger in the picture with the grain
removed. Needless to say, she was happy. I'd like for you to try it again.
Examine a very small area, say 8 mm by 10 mm printed at 8" by 10" where the
original is over or under exposed.
>Roc is way too strong even at its lowest setting (Jack!!) but effective.
I'll pass this on to our engineers. Maybe we need a weaker setting. If you
are trying it on recently exposed, well exposed and newly processed film (is
this you Paul?), you can get some interesting but maybe over colorful
results. What you might want to consider is to make two images, with and
without Digital ROC. Then in an image editor, combine the two by "painting"
the brighter colors in where you want them.
The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out:
where there is a picture of an
old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have
unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent).
Good luck with your Nikon 8000.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
-----Original Message-----
From: PAUL GRAHAM [mailto:peegee@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:39 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying
Dilemma
>Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine
scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping
medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it
uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE
with it.
Well, I have the Nikon 8000, and I can quite frankly tell you that the focus
issue is a complete non starter. I have no idea where it came from - Mikael
in Sweden maybe, but no, it is not an issue. I am hypercritical, and it
simply isn't true on any normally flat negative.
Digital Ice I dismissed till I tried it, but was shocked how effective it
was. I am a pro and have pretty clean m/f negs, but this saves an age of
spotting, wasting my time combing over each 550Mb 6x7 file. Really, don't
knock it till you try it! I can tell no difference in sharpness on the
normal setting at all, and I use Zeiss m/f lenses.
Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame.
Roc is way too strong even at its lowest settting (Jack!!) but effective.
The 8000 is an excellent scanner. Nikonscan sets the standard for UI of all
scanner programmes and is easy to learn, yet powerful in its hidden depths.
Lawrences tests showed the Nikon to be the sharper of the 2 scanners (only
just though, the polaroid is very sharp too), and that was it for me,
nothing else mattered really.
The new Minolta Mulit Pro is one of those machines with different
resolutions for different format. for m/f I belive it is 3200 or 3400 dpi,
if that is plenty for you, then its a fine trade off for higher res on 35mm.
The $12,000 Imacons that advertise themselves at 5800 dpi do that same
trick, and are in fact 3200 dpi for M/F.
Paul
