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

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

Dave

How much longer did the second scan take with the single CCD being used?   I
scanned an image this morning on a LS8000, 14-bit, 2000ppi, 6X7, no ICE, 1
sample and the image was of a white pocelain hand holding two green apples
against a buff coloured background.  There was significant badning in the
green apples and the background, and the scan too around four or five
minutes to scan and opn in PS.  If I use one CCD this could take three times
as long, which would not be too good.

The Nikon does feel like a tinny box don't you think?  It doesn't feel like
£2,600 worth of equipment.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:16 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the
Sprintscan120(comments verywelcome please)


> I said previously:
> >A CCD scanner will not read the deepest shadows of transparency film
>
> Well, I may have to eat my words here.  I've spent the evening testing the
> LS-8000 using some of the chromes that have given me fits in the past.
One
> slide in particular that I had to use the "two scans and combine in
> Photoshop" trick, the LS-8000 sailed through with flying colors.  I made
> three scans, all with ICE and the same curves correction: 1x multi sample,
8
> bit, 3 CCD, 4x multi sample, 8 bit, 1 CCD, and 4x multi sample, 1 CCD, 14
> bit.  The correction was pretty extreme, to lighten and then add
> compensating shadow contrast using both curves and LCH editor (lightness
> channel).  The first scan had major banding (it was a big band), so
Nikon's
> statements that banding increases with increasing contrast edits is
> definitely true.  The second had no banding, and was good enough really,
so
> I wasn't expecting any improvement in the third hi-bit scan.  After all,
> Nikonscan processes the correction in hi bit before saving to disk, right?
> I was surprised to see that the hi bit scan was considerably better in the
> shadows than the 8 bit scan, as shadow transitions were much smoother and
> there was more detail.  In fact, on the 14 bit scan there was shadow
detail
> I can't see on the #$%@ light table!  This is a first in my experience.
> Perhaps I could see it if I masked the chrome off (on the light table),
but
> I didn't bother, I was convinced already.  Scan times go way up with all
the
> goodies dialed in, so they'll only get use as necessary, but it's still a
> hell of a lot less time than I spent hunched over in front of the monitor
> scanning this image before, and this time I was on the sofa catching the
> news while the scanner whirred away.  All of the scans I did need very
> little or no post processing in Photoshop.  Somebody pinch me, I think I'm
> dreaming.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> 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