[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Wed 10 Apr, 2002

["John Torpy" <torpy@uniontel.net>]

Delete subscription now.----- Original Message -----
From: <filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk>
To: <torpy@uniontel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Wed 10 Apr, 2002


> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Topic: [filmscanners] Can anyone help me? (OT)
> =========================================
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Did you try calling Polaroid and asking them, or looking at their web site
> and seeing if there was any contact information there?
>
> >
> > Everybody:
> >
> > I was one of the last people to purchase the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
> > scanner under the rebate program.  I submitted all the paperwork, but
> > never got the $200 rebate I was supposed to receive.  The paperwork was
> > sent in January, and now it's April.  At the time, I was in frequent
> > touch with David Hemingway, then still working for Polaroid, who assured
> > me that I had nothing to worry about.  Now he has retired.
> >
> > Can anyone suggest a name or a department at Polaroid whom I can contact
> > about this?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Lee
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:50:30 -0400
> From: "Bernie Kubiak" <bkubiak@attbi.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> It takes a long time for the rebate to show up but it does eventually
> (and I even sent mine by certified mail, which was supposed to be the
> kiss of death).  Call Polaroid and ask them for help and/or for a name &
> number of the Florida company that's processing the rebates.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Lee Lockwood
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: bkubiak@attbi.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Can anyone help me? (OT)
>
> Everybody:
>
> I was one of the last people to purchase the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
> scanner under the rebate program.  I submitted all the paperwork, but
> never got the $200 rebate I was supposed to receive.  The paperwork was
> sent in January, and now it's April.  At the time, I was in frequent
> touch with David Hemingway, then still working for Polaroid, who assured
> me that I had nothing to worry about.  Now he has retired.
>
> Can anyone suggest a name or a department at Polaroid whom I can contact
> about this?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs. Minol
> ===============================================================
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:23:12 -0500
> From: Jack Phipps <JPhipps@asf.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> The Nikon 8000 has a diffuse light source, and should give you adequate
> results. I haven't seen a direct comparison between the SS120 and the
> LS-8000. I would recommend a test before you change out.
>
> Jack Phipps
> Applied Science Fiction
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave King [mailto:kingphoto@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:28 AM
> To: Jack Phipps
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.
> MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
>
>
> Art,
>
> In my experience higher resolution systems typically present a "softer"
> picture, but levels of detail rendering are higher.  Tonal transitions are
> rendered more continuously, and this is the reason for the "softer"
> appearance, but it's a more accurate reproduction of the source, and this
> (of course) is desirable.  Rafe's suggestion the sometimes "sharper"
> appearance of lower res is analogous to posterization makes sense.  A
gross
> analogy would be a continuous tone ramp vs. a stepped ramp.  Audio
engineers
> use the term "crunchy" to describe low res digital sound, and in David's
> comparison the Minolta scan does have a somewhat crunchy look compared to
> the Nikon.
>
> On a personal note, I'm thrown into a quandary.  I'm thinking of returning
a
> recently purchased SS120 for the LS-8000.  Looking back over recent posts
I
> see that Jack Phipps asserts dICE usually does work with Kodachrome, and
> suggests a two scan layer blending approach for when it doesn't.
>
> I'm also wondering if LS-8000 scans with no dICE (for B&W scans
> particularly) are more problematic than with CCD scanners using a
> conventional light source?  Comments from users regarding Kodachrome and
B&W
> scanning would be appreciated!
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
> To: <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:37 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.
> MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
>
>
>
>
> M. Denis Hill wrote:
>
> > I would find these observations more useful if the observers would
include
> > mention of ownership of either unit under discussion. Not to imply the
> > possibility of bias, of course.;=)
> >
> > M. Denis Hill
> > Minolta Multi Pro owner
> >
> >
>
>
> Although I'll agree personal bias can enter into this discussion rather
> easily, I think some of it is not conscious.  For myself, my first look
> led me to favor the Minolta because I expect to see all the "detail",
> and the Nikon looked softer.  Well, the Nikon is softer, but I'm not
> sure it is less detailed, however.  I think the Minolta is so
> "amplifying" (maybe due to aliasing, or the light source, or the post
> scan processing that might be hidden) the DDSG situation that it is
> almost obscuring the detail that is under it.
>
> With film scanners, I think the problem is counter intuitive response.
> WHat I mean is, we have all be taught to look for defined objects with
> distinct edges as a harbinger of "sharpness" and therefore assume that
> also means better detail and more resolution.  With film scanners
> however, due to the digital nature of the capture (a defined element
> with a distinct matrix) scans need to come from the scanner in a
> unsharpened or softer condition than we wish the final result to be.
>
> Even a few months ago, I was looking for the wrong things and even
> yesterday, it took me a second look to fully appreciate what I already
> knew, that sharpness and detail are not the same thing, necessarily.
>
> This is why I'm again suggesting that scans that have not be processed
> with USM are, in effect, half processed, and do not make for accurate
> comparison material.
>
> I am still blown away by the fact that I can take a scan from the
> SS4000+ and literally (at .8 radius and 0 threshold, crank the
> sharpening Amount in Photoshop to maximum, and not see sharpening
> artifacts at normal printing resolutions.  Yet, with the Minolta (Dual
> II), forget it.  before I'm halfway up the Amount scale, I'm seeing
> grain galore, and noise, and specks, etc.
>
>
>
> With the Polaroid scan, I decide what level of sharpness is appropriate
> for a specific look, and printing style.  With the Minolta, I'm at the
> mercy of the scan not falling apart.
>
> I therefore propose, that comparisons be done post USM, because that is,
> afterall the true indication of the ability of the scanner.
>
> Art
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
ScanMulti Pro!
>
============================================================================
===
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:31:19 +0100
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> OK, thought I might try the SS 120.  Read a lot about it and the main
issues
> seem to be fiddly holders (especially trying to line up the 35mm neg.
> strips) and no ICE.  Can any users let me know thoughts re. the holders
and
> whether the need for ICE is less than the Nikon/Minolta due to the
different
> type of light source.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "david/lisa soderman" <scapes@wi.net>
> To: <simon@sclamb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:50 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
> ScanMulti Pro!
>
>
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > I'm back.
> > There were several questions and comments that various folks had to say
> re:
> > the sample scans that I recently posted.
> > I'll try to respond to everything at one time.  I hope this works out.
> >
> > First, no I did not do the scans at the same time.  Back around
> Thanksgiving
> > time, I had the Nikon LS8000 for a short time.  I just happened to save
a
> > few of the test scans.  I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
> > w/ICE.  I think there was even a 4000ppi scan w/VueScan & Ed's IR
> cleaning.
> > The VueScan one was the only one that I did set at "superfine scan"
mode.
> > (No choice w/VueScan).  Honestly, I didn't notice banding in my type of
> > "people" portraiture.  Then again, I didn't test the unit for an
extended
> > period of time.  If I had only known, I surely would have kept the
Nikon.
> >
> > In mid-December, I exchanged the Nikon unit for the Minolta Scan Multi
> Pro.
> > At the time, I was "gun shy" from all the negative reports coming in re:
> the
> > Nikon unit.  Also at the time, there weren't many reports on the
Minolta.
> > What little feedback there was - was all great.  It was the busiest time
> of
> > year for my business.  By the time I actually got the unit out of the
box
> > and began testing it, the store said it was too late to return it.  I
> never
> > filled out the warranty card; the scanner is basically brand new.  What
to
> > do next?   (hear the violins in background)
> >
> > I decided to try scanning that same neg that I used the Nikon on.  I was
> > immediately horrified when I saw the grainy/gritty look...especially on
> the
> > faces of people!  Also, there was scads of dust, dirt, debris and
> scratches
> > everywhere.  ICE helped, but did not clean it all up.  Also, the
> > grainy/gritty look was still there.  Any scanning without ICE on this
> > machine would be a time consuming extravaganza of cleanup.
> >
> > I never did use 4800ppi on the Minolta, because of it's interpolation on
> 6x6
> > negs.  So, everything I posted was @ 3200 ppi.
> >
> > No, I haven't ever used GEM on the scans to minimize grain.  I tried and
> > tried...but still haven't ever seen the "progress bar" even begin to
move
> a
> > fraction of an inch  - even after 45 minutes.  I simply gave up on GEM
> with
> > the Minolta.
> >
> > And no, I haven't tried the "defocusing" idea yet.  I've been wasting
lots
> > of my time on this machine lately.  The only reason that I've recently
had
> > this much time to fiddle around with it is because I've been home sick
> with
> > a bad cold.  But as soon as I recover, I've got to make a decision re:
> what
> > to do with this thing.  First, I need to know whether this is typical
> > performance for negs...or whether I have a defective unit.  Then I'll
know
> > whether to sell it...or have it repaired first; then sell it.
> >
> > I've yet to hear *any* input from anyone else who scans negs with the
> > Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  So I can only assume that everyone else out
there
> > is scanning transparencies.  Actually, no that I think about it, Jack
> Phipps
> > from Applied Science Fiction mentioned that he has made good neg scans
on
> > it.  I wonder if he's seen the posted scans.  I must remember to send
him
> a
> > CD with full rez samples.
> >
> > I find it interesting that when I posted my 1st batch of scans a few
days
> > ago, (Minolta scans only), nobody found the grain objectionable.  Only
> when
> > placed next to the Nikon scans did anyone complain.  (Myself included!)
> >
> > When I find time, I'll try the "defocusing" idea - even though I think
> it's
> > preposterous to need to do so on such a costly box.
> > Also, I would like to point out that the "crud"/grain/noise is still
> > present...even at lower resolutions like 1600ppi.  I don't know if I'll
> have
> > time to illustrate that though.
> >
> > Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
> > welcome.
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:47:02 -0700
> From: "Moreno Polloni" <mp@dccnet.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> >> OK, thought I might try the SS 120.  Read a lot about it and the main
> issues
> seem to be fiddly holders (especially trying to line up the 35mm neg.
> strips) and no ICE.  Can any users let me know thoughts re. the holders
and
> whether the need for ICE is less than the Nikon/Minolta due to the
different
> type of light source. <<
>
> It seems that people who have scanners without ICE generally report that
> they don't need it, their scans are just fine without it, and even if
their
> scanners had ICE, they probably wouldn't use it.
>
> People who have scanners with ICE (particularly the latest version)
> generally report that they love it and would never consider buying a
scanner
> without it.
>
> You can achieve a lot of the benefits (but not all) that ICE offers
manually
> in Photoshop. It's just more time and effort on your part.
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:34:51 +0100
> From: "dickbo" <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
> To: <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:31 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
> ScanMulti Pro!
>
>
> OK, thought I might try the SS 120.  Read a lot about it and the main
issues
> seem to be fiddly holders (especially trying to line up the 35mm neg.
> strips) and no ICE.  Can any users let me know thoughts re. the holders
and
> whether the need for ICE is less than the Nikon/Minolta due to the
different
> type of light source.
>
> ICE is driven by original condition and not the condition of the scanner.
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] RE: Is the ICE feature in Scanwit 2740S any good?
> ==================================================================
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:50:30 -0700
> From: Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> Jack Phipps wrote:
>
>
> > Begin Sales Pitch
> > My experience with the Acer2740S, Benq 2740S or the Umax 270 Plus is
that it
> > has the best price/performance of any film scanner with Digital ICE. I
> > really like it. It is very effective at removing surface defects from
film
> > scans, and you are already familiar with the effectiveness of the Acer
> > scanners. The results should be the same, except that in most cases the
> > surface defects will be gone!
> > End Sales Pitch
> >
> > Jack Phipps
> > Applied Science Fiction
> >
>
>
>
> At the current price of the the Benq Scanwit 2740S (on Ebay under $400
> US, new) anyone needing a scanner with dICE should consider this a "best
> value".  In fact, at that price, it almost might be worth considering as
> a second scanner for those "hard to repair with cloning tool" scans, and
> it makes a good back-up in case your main squeeze needs repair.
>
> For example, for the price of a Minolta Elite II, you could own a
> Minolta Dual II AND a Benq 2740S with dICE.  Weird.
>
> Art
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Can anyone help me? (OT)
> ==========================
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:58:11 -0400
> From: "Lee Lockwood" <llockwood@attbi.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Everybody:
>
> I was one of the last people to purchase the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
> scanner under the rebate program.  I submitted all the paperwork, but
> never got the $200 rebate I was supposed to receive.  The paperwork was
> sent in January, and now it's April.  At the time, I was in frequent
> touch with David Hemingway, then still working for Polaroid, who assured
> me that I had nothing to worry about.  Now he has retired.
>
> Can anyone suggest a name or a department at Polaroid whom I can contact
> about this?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Cannot unsubscribe
> ====================
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:37:49 +0100
> From: "John Weiss" <john.weiss@virgin.net>
> ----------------------------------------
> I'm away for a couple of weeks and would like to unsubscribe, but eight
> attempts to follow the instructions have produced no result, and I don't
> want my server to get full up - can anyone help?
>
> John Weiss
> Enjoying the list but must take a break
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Monaco EZ Color
> =================
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:09:13 EDT
> From: HMSDOC@aol.com
> ----------------------------------------
> I have a copy of Monaco EZ Color 2.0 that I have decided not to use.  The
> software has been totally removed from my computer so as not to break any
> licensing agreements and I actually did not even use it to generate
profiles
> as I decided to try pro profiles.  The price, new, is $299 and I am
willing
> to sell my copy for $200.  Please let me know off list if anyone is
> interested.
>
> Howard
> HMSDOC@aol.com
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: test ignore
> =============
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:56:08 +0100
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> test
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body