It's certainly more stable, and better able to control results, than the
Polacolor that
came with my Sprintscan 120. The thing I hate about it is that it needs to hold
the entire
image in memory to do corrections - not a big deal for 35mm, but for 6 x 9 -
This + its
base allocation = 800+mb, more than I can physically install in my poor beige
G3 (max 3 x
256 = 768mb). (and I get really weird distorion when I turn VM on).
Also, at least for the Polaroid, getting it set up to preview different 120
formats
correctly was a pain.
It does seem to be somewhat slower.
Tim Atherton wrote:
> I use it regularly with the LS4000 (and sometimes on the 8000 - which I
> don't use much anyway).
>
> Especially for bulk scanning thousands of slides, it does a much better job
> of getting the exposure spot on.
>
> And most of the time I still find it does a better job than the Nikon
> software - which is probably more personal taste than anything
>
> tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> > [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka
> > Sr.
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:26 PM
> > To: tim@KairosPhoto.com
> > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: vuescan
> >
> >
> > Software tuned to film seems worth $40 to me. I use Vuescan
> > regularly with
> > the Nikon LS-30. It's preview is admittedly not as accurate and the
> > interface perhaps not as convenient as Nikons, but it's main advantage is
> > that it will pick up all the highlight and shadow details and not
> > clip them,
> > and the image can then be adjusted in PS or other graphic
> > software in which
> > one can see the image much better.
> >
> > Maris
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matt Haber" <matt@matthaber.com>
> > To: <mlidaka@Ameritech.Net>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:20 PM
> > Subject: [filmscanners] vuescan
> >
> >
> > seems like vuescan might be useful, but here are my gripes. maybe
> > somebody can set me straight....
> >
> > my hardware is the nikon ls 8000.
> >
> > i tried the tryout version...which seems useless for critical
> > comparisons, because of the "$40" on the final image. that's my first
> > gripe. it may be cheap, but I don't want to spend any $$ unless it will
> > improve my result.
> >
> > second, it seems to take a very long time to scan, render and save,
> > compared to the nikon scan software.
> >
> > It seems to be very kludgy about helping to identify a particular
> > image. It will do preview scans of everything, but that also takes a
> > very long time.
> >
> > its only advantage seems to be the way the software is tuned to the
> > film. I use fuji Reala, and it seemed to produce a much better
> > preview scan right out of the box. BUT i'm not sure that alone is
> > worth it. any thoughts?
> >
> > mattMatt Haber
> > dance, portrait and fashion photography
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ------------
> > 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
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
