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

["Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com>]

In my opinion, based on what I know so far, yes.  Color neg grain is
smoother, image detail is very slightly sharper, 3 CCD scans are *fast* if
not always sufficient, and the software has the very useful features of ICE
and ROC.  End points are set very well with little effort, and color
accuracy is the best I've seen with color negs and chromes.  I'm not sure
how Nikon manages this with color negs since no film terms appear to be in
use.  Perhaps it corrects color negs individually on the fly, but whatever,
it works.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
To: <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120
(comments verywelcome please)


In the UK the Flextight is £4,700 compared to £2,100 for the SS 120.   Quite
a difference still.  The LS8000 is £2,700, so a lot nearer.  But is it £600
better?

Simon

On 14/4/02 5:28 pm, "Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I agree with your current observations except I find Insight to reproduce
> any color transparency I have tried pretty well.  Also, the 35mm strip
> holder has sprocket hole tabs movable by the "film position slider",
> enabling the film to be positioned side to side with little effort.  After
> closing the top piece you have to gently bracket the film position slider
> until the tabs "fall into" the sprocket holes.  Perhaps you've already
done
> this and still find it fiddly, but I was satisfied with this mechanism.
>
> The price reduction of the Flextight Photo certainly makes it viable, and
> you may want to consider the Nikon LS-8000 as well.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
>
> 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



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