[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120 (comments verywelcome please)

["Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>]

I did not try Silverfast, although Vuescan did produce some better results.
I take your point about the Flextight, although I always get slides in
strips and mount them myself when I have selected the keepers.  There is a
strip Flex holder that allows up to four to be scanned at once, you need to
turn the strip around to do the last two frames of a six frame strip.  There
is also a three frame 6X6 holder (actually it is a 6X18 holder).

Obviously scanning a back catalog of mounted slides would be a headache.

I will try scanning the Portra as a RAW file and see if that makes a
difference.  To be honest, it amazes me that a £30 piece of software such as
Vuescan can produce a scan in TIFF format that is vastly superior to
Insight.  I guess Insight just got the profile wrong, but as I said, Vuescan
produces superior scans on Provia, Scala and Delta.

As part of this workflow I am looking to minimise the Photoshop manipulation
time required, and Insight doesn't look like it will allow that.  I will
download the Silverfast demo and try that too.  I do not want to open the
Silverfast Ai supplied with the scanner in case they will not take it back
should I return it.

Thanks for your reply.

Simon

On 14/4/02 10:07 am, "Lloyd O'Daniel" <lodaniel@bham.rr.com> wrote:

> I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your
> experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight
> to Silverfast for routine scans, although we primarily scan chromes. The
> only negs I've done on his machine are circa 1980 Kodacolor and VPS
> 645's. In that case, I did raw scans there and did the processing here
> with Silverfast HDR or Photoshop. Results were very good. Have you tried
> Silverfast?
> 
> If/when I can afford it, I might go for a Flextight Photo as well. They
> are considered a cut above, and priced accordingly. The only caveats I
> have with that scanner are I believe you have to unmount 35mm slides and
> cut negs individually or into very short strips. From a film handling
> and storing viewpoint for me, that would be a headache.
> 
> Lloyd
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Simon Lamb
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: lodaniel@bham.rr.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120
> (comments verywelcome please)
> 
> 
> I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS
> 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and
> supportive.  I though I would share some of the comments that I made
> with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make.  All would be
> welcome. ____________________
> 
> I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results.
> The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off.  The
> resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or
> even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it
> that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable.  I think the film terms in
> general within Insight need to be reviewed.  Scanning using the generic
> slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results.  The only good
> scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS.
> As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100
> and Delta 400 I gave up.  The scans where very dark, the black point
> stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end
> had been pushed up against a wall.
> 
> So, I moved on to using Vuescan.  The Provia scanned well although the
> colour accuracy was not too good.  My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a
> better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as
> detailed.  The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans
> I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail.
> The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights.  The Porta
> 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling
> all over the scan.  I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight
> term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has
> difficulty with the Portra emulsion.  A shame, since my LS30 scans it
> very well.
> 
> So where am I now.  Well, the SS 120  can obviously produce detailed
> scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them,
> especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work.  I
> am not really happy about relying on third party software because should
> Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be
> difficult to get the results I need.  The carriers are fiddly.  In many
> cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is
> impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier
> slightly undone.  Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot
> of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted,  and some were
> just too far out to be workable.
> 
> I think I will return the SS 120 and try the Flextight Photo.  I did
> find when comparing it side by side with the SS 120 in the store that
> the Photo just about always reproduced the image as near as possible to
> the original colour, contrast etc.  The built in film profiles seemed to
> be accurate.  It may take twice as long to scan, but I may save that
> additional time not having to do so much in Photoshop.
> 
> Your comments on my findings would be welcomed.  I know a lot of people
> use the SS 120, so either I am doing something wrong or they just put
> the effort in to correct images post scanning.
> 
> I was using Insight 5.5.1.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Simon

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