filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Topic: [filmscanners] need your older Nikon film scanners recommendations
> ====================================================================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:10:21 -0500
> From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> When it comes to scanner its better/safe to go for NEW scanner with =
> manufactures warrenty.
> The reason is quality control in scanners seems to be not consistent.=20
>
> Ramesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Eisenstadt [mailto:michaele@ando.pair.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:51 PM
> To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
> Subject: [filmscanners] need your older Nikon film scanners
> recommendations
>
> My Nikon LS-10 having died, I envisage buying a used
> Nikon scanner on Ebay. Your remembered experiences of
> the LS-1000, LS-20, LS-2000, LS-30 in terms of apparent
> resolution and color accuracy will be very much
> appreciated.
>
> I am a photo hobbyist, not a pro shooter, and the
> speed of the scan is not an issue.
>
> Thanks in advance for your opinions.
>
> Michael Eisenstadt
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ---------------
> 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] Newish Digital Tech
> ====================================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:46:34 -0800
> From: "Robert Meier" <filmscanner@meierlim.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Scanners often use either three rows of CCDs each sensitive to a different
> color or three different light sources. Therefore you will get the full
> color information for each pixel. While a few digital (video) cameras also
> use a three CCD approach most of them use just one CCD with a color pattern.
> Therefore, you won't get the full color information for each spatial
> location. This is different with the X3 sensor. Nevertheless, it is
> questionable how well that approach works. I would think there might be some
> serious problems with color seperation, sensitivity, noise, etc. I wish
> these guys good 'luck' though because if they can solve these problems it
> might be a great solution for all of us.
>
> Robert
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >The 'X3' sensor has 3 sensors per pixel point, as opposed to
> >3 seperate RGB pixels near to represent one colour 'point'
> >as in normal CCDs.
> >
> >Actually, this has made me curious about film scanners. How
> >is each point on a scanned image made up? Is it like a CCD strip?
> >Something better?? And if this technology can work for filmscanners
> >will it be a very significant improvement?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Re: Hello/ routine question
> ============================================
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:26:43 -0500
> From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Robert,
>
> > 2. This scanner is certainly best at scanning negatives,
>
> I don't believe the scanner is better or worse at negatives or positives,
> unless it's an older scanner that doesn't support the density range of
> positives.
>
> > but you can scan
> > unmounted slides (or positive film). If the software doesn't specifically
> > address scanning unmounted slide film...
>
> Why would it have to "specifically address scanning unmounted slide film"?
> Just select positive, and use a film holder. As far as the software is
> concerned, it should be no different than scanning a slide.
>
> Austin
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:37:47 -0800
> From: Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
> ----------------------------------------
> The HP 5100A scanner is also known as the original HP Photosmart
> scanner, which is indeed one of the earlier ones. The person who
> commented that it is best at scanning negatives is correct. It has very
> poor density range and has a very major problem with either banding or
> other artifacts in dense areas of slides.
>
> Further, it does not use ANY film carriers. It is a contraption that
> changes its front configuration to accept film, (which the original
> software, at least, assumed were negative strips), mounted slides (which
> the scanner assumed were positives, or a 5" wide lip for reflective
> images up to 5 x 7" (at 300 dpi).
>
> I do believe the software may have been updated to allow a person to
> select slide film strip, so they could scan slides that were unmounted.
>
> At the time, the model was considered the best "value" film scanner for
> its cost. It is a SCSI device, and was "cheap" at under $500 US. Today,
> its relatively low resolution (2400 dpi at CCD and much less in actual
> output), poor density range, causing banding and artifacts with slides,
> tendency to wear, misalign and fail due to the many mechanical parts,
> mediocre software, and other factors (it can often scratch a film strip
> that is more than 4 frames long if used to capture the fifth and sixth
> frame) make it worth pretty much what this person paid for it (nothing).
>
> If it is the only film scanner the person owns and they are not doing
> critical scanning (keeping the printed size to 8x10" or less) and
> willing to put up with the other inadequacies, it is a usable product.
> As has been mentioned, best to NOT use the reflective configuration,
> since it is only a 5 x7" 300 dpi reflective scanner and pretty much any
> flatbed made in the last few years will eclipse that and do a better job
> of it also for about $50.
>
> I owned several of these while I tried to get a good one. It was
> eventually updated to a USB version which had numerous improvements and
> many of the same failings (and new ones).
>
> There are several free alternative software packages which were written
> for it, if a person takes the time to hunt around on the web, and HP did
> update the software as well.
>
> Art
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Robert,
> >
> >
> >>2. This scanner is certainly best at scanning negatives,
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe the scanner is better or worse at negatives or positives,
> > unless it's an older scanner that doesn't support the density range of
> > positives.
> >
> >
> >>but you can scan
> >>unmounted slides (or positive film). If the software doesn't specifically
> >>address scanning unmounted slide film...
> >>
> >
> > Why would it have to "specifically address scanning unmounted slide film"?
> > Just select positive, and use a film holder. As far as the software is
> > concerned, it should be no different than scanning a slide.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:42:43 -0500
> From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Arthur,
>
> I certainly would have never guessed anyone would have designed a scanner in
> such a fashion, thanks for the correction. Hopefully, not many were. I'm
> sure the original poster is glad you have knowledge of "arcane" consumer
> level scanners ;-).
>
> Austin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> > [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:38 AM
> > To: austin@darkroom.com
> > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Hello/ routine question
> >
> >
> > The HP 5100A scanner is also known as the original HP Photosmart
> > scanner, which is indeed one of the earlier ones. The person who
> > commented that it is best at scanning negatives is correct. It has very
> > poor density range and has a very major problem with either banding or
> > other artifacts in dense areas of slides.
> >
> > Further, it does not use ANY film carriers. It is a contraption that
> > changes its front configuration to accept film, (which the original
> > software, at least, assumed were negative strips), mounted slides (which
> > the scanner assumed were positives, or a 5" wide lip for reflective
> > images up to 5 x 7" (at 300 dpi).
> >
> > I do believe the software may have been updated to allow a person to
> > select slide film strip, so they could scan slides that were unmounted.
> >
> > At the time, the model was considered the best "value" film scanner for
> > its cost. It is a SCSI device, and was "cheap" at under $500 US. Today,
> > its relatively low resolution (2400 dpi at CCD and much less in actual
> > output), poor density range, causing banding and artifacts with slides,
> > tendency to wear, misalign and fail due to the many mechanical parts,
> > mediocre software, and other factors (it can often scratch a film strip
> > that is more than 4 frames long if used to capture the fifth and sixth
> > frame) make it worth pretty much what this person paid for it (nothing).
> >
> > If it is the only film scanner the person owns and they are not doing
> > critical scanning (keeping the printed size to 8x10" or less) and
> > willing to put up with the other inadequacies, it is a usable product.
> > As has been mentioned, best to NOT use the reflective configuration,
> > since it is only a 5 x7" 300 dpi reflective scanner and pretty much any
> > flatbed made in the last few years will eclipse that and do a better job
> > of it also for about $50.
> >
> > I owned several of these while I tried to get a good one. It was
> > eventually updated to a USB version which had numerous improvements and
> > many of the same failings (and new ones).
> >
> > There are several free alternative software packages which were written
> > for it, if a person takes the time to hunt around on the web, and HP did
> > update the software as well.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > >
> > >>2. This scanner is certainly best at scanning negatives,
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't believe the scanner is better or worse at negatives or
> > positives,
> > > unless it's an older scanner that doesn't support the density range of
> > > positives.
> > >
> > >
> > >>but you can scan
> > >>unmounted slides (or positive film). If the software doesn't
> > specifically
> > >>address scanning unmounted slide film...
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why would it have to "specifically address scanning unmounted
> > slide film"?
> > > Just select positive, and use a film holder. As far as the software is
> > > concerned, it should be no different than scanning a slide.
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------
> > 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: need your older Nikon film scanners recommendations
> ========================================================================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:11:01 -0600
> From: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Nagaraj, Ramesh wrote:
> >
> > When it comes to scanner its better/safe to go for NEW scanner with
>manufactures warrenty.
> > The reason is quality control in scanners seems to be not consistent.
>
> I appreciate your prompt answer to my question but at
> the same time what you say doesn't make any sense in
> terms of what I asked.
>
> I asked
>
> > My Nikon LS-10 having died, I envisage buying a used
> > Nikon scanner on Ebay. Your remembered experiences of
> > the LS-1000, LS-20, LS-2000, LS-30 in terms of apparent
> > resolution and color accuracy will be very much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > I am a photo hobbyist, not a pro shooter, and the
> > speed of the scan is not an issue.
>
> The owner of this maillist has samples of a Kodak
> test slide scanned by these models online. As far
> as I can tell by examining them on screen, the
> LS-1000 has better resolution than the LS-20
> and LS-30 which would be odd if it were so.
> Isn't there any subscriber to filmscanners who
> has personal experience of these models? (in
> addition to this maillist's administrator)
>
> Can the Kodak test slide used still be ordered?
>
> Again, thanks in advance.
>
> Michael Eisenstadt
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] RE: Newish Digital Tech
> ========================================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:16:06 -0500
> From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Hi Robert,
>
> > Scanners often use either three rows of CCDs each sensitive to a different
> > color or three different light sources. Therefore you will get the full
> > color information for each pixel. While a few digital (video) cameras also
> > use a three CCD approach most of them use just one CCD with a
> > color pattern.
> > Therefore, you won't get the full color information for each spatial
> > location.
>
> True, but it's the significance of this loss in point spatial information
> that is at question for me. I believe it is barely significant, and the
> images from the new high sensor count cameras certainly are convincing.
>
> > This is different with the X3 sensor.
>
> I am not convinced that the architecture does this %100 as you suggest...
>
> > Nevertheless, it is
> > questionable how well that approach works. I would think there
> > might be some
> > serious problems with color seperation, sensitivity, noise, etc. I wish
> > these guys good 'luck' though
>
> As do I....but...
>
> > because if they can solve these problems it
> > might be a great solution for all of us.
>
> What problem does it solve? I am not convinced it solves any significant
> problem...and that there are issues beyond what you suggest.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
> Hi, Austin.. I take it that we are looking at a FOVEON imaging chip. If so,
>it would be most interesting to hear some dispassionate critique here --
>compared to the promo fluff that has been reported in several 'reviews' that
>I've seen. Of course what I've read to date has about applications in
>cameras, no film scanners. It sure sounds interesting -- if it works as
>represented.
Regards,
Frank K-F
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:24:06 -0800
> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Nikon film scanners use one broadband linear CCD and three colors of
> illumination. I believe the light sources are LEDs, and since LEDs have
> fairly narrow spectral bands (narrower than the typical filters over
> tri-colored CCDs), they have more metamerism (although this can be solved
> with proper profiles).
>
> --
>
> Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
>
> > From: Robert Meier
> >
> > Scanners often use either three rows of CCDs each sensitive to a different
> > color or three different light sources. Therefore you will get the full
> > color information for each pixel. While a few digital (video) cameras also
> > use a three CCD approach most of them use just one CCD with a
> > color pattern.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: need your older Nikon film scanners recommendations
> =====================================================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:50:47 -0600
> From: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> My Nikon LS-10 having died, I envisage buying a used
> Nikon scanner on Ebay. Your remembered experiences of
> the LS-1000, LS-20, LS-2000, LS-30 in terms of apparent
> resolution and color accuracy will be very much
> appreciated.
>
> I am a photo hobbyist, not a pro shooter, and the
> speed of the scan is not an issue.
>
> Thanks in advance for your opinions.
>
> Michael Eisenstadt
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Newish Digital Tech
> =====================
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:01:12 +0000
> From: Robert Logan <bert_logan@btopenworld.com>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> The 'X3' sensor has 3 sensors per pixel point, as opposed to
> 3 seperate RGB pixels near to represent one colour 'point'
> as in normal CCDs.
>
> Actually, this has made me curious about film scanners. How
> is each point on a scanned image made up? Is it like a CCD strip?
> Something better?? And if this technology can work for filmscanners
> will it be a very significant improvement?
>
> bert
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
