Scanner advice (first film)

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:47:47 GMT, Scott in Florida
<JustAsk DeleteThis @Florida.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:59 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
><Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk DeleteThis @Florida.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>I guess what I'm after is a 'quick look' at say a group of negatives.
>If it looks interesting, then do a good scan of those negs.

So don't forget that you'll need some kind of software that can
produce "contact sheets," either from your scanner or from the images
from the Photo CD.
>
>I'm not cast in concrete as to which way to go.

Good to know. But somehow there's a joke in there about how much this
will all cost you, and that you should borrow the money from the wrong
kind of guys.

(Did I ever mention that I grew up in Brooklyn? But I'm not related
to any of those crooks who run the mail-order places these days.)
>
>I fully understand the time required to do the whole job...and your
>points about getting a Photo CD do make a lot of sense in making a
>good inventory of what I have.
>
>Then there is my curiosity with the technology and wanting to learn
>how to scan negatives....

If you do buy a scanner, whether Minolta or another brand, you will
need to consider third party scanning software alternatives. Also a
stack-loader for your slides and a filmstrip holder for your negs.

The scanning software should have "profiles" for different kinds of
color films, since apparently the orange mask differs from color neg
film to color neg film.

>
>My original thought was to find a scanner that doesn't cost an arm and
>a leg and give it a try.

There's always ebay. But a lot of the older Nikon scanners require
SCSI, which may or may not be another technology you are curious
about.

Father Kodak
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:


>
>Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan, and most film

Why is that?

>scanners - including the Minolta - will give best results with C-41
>colour negatives and E-6 slides. B&W negative film is also difficult
>to scan.

Again, why? Is that because there is no "color" except gray?
>
>The alternative to Minolta Dual IV is a Nikon Coolscan V or a used
>Nikon Coolscan IV. I think the Nikon has the edge with C-41
>colour negatives because it uses IR-light ("digital ICE") to
>remove scratches - but for 'chromes and B&W, the Minolta is just
>as good (or bad) at a lower price.

Among these various scanners, do you have first-hand experience? Can
any of them produce RAW files?

Pere Kodak
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother.RemoveThis@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
><gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan, and most film
>
>Why is that?
>

Because the emulsion is irregular, with visible "ridges" on
edges and suchlike. This produces strong images in the IR
channel which look like defects to the software so it tries
to remove them.

>>scanners - including the Minolta - will give best results with C-41
>>colour negatives and E-6 slides. B&W negative film is also difficult
>>to scan.
>
>Again, why? Is that because there is no "color" except gray?

The image contains silver which reflects the IR as well as
visible, makes an even bigger mess with the IR cleaning than
Kodachrome.

IR cleaning relies on the film being uniformly transparent
to IR, so any variation seen in IR is assumed to be a defect
of some sort or surface dust and debris.

--
Regards

John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:49:00 GMT, Scott in Florida
<JustAsk DeleteThis @Florida.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:24:44 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot DeleteThis @gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak
>><dont_bother DeleteThis @IDontCare.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
>>><gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan, and most film
>>>
>>>Why is that?
>>>
>>
>>Because the emulsion is irregular, with visible "ridges" on
>>edges and suchlike. This produces strong images in the IR
>>channel which look like defects to the software so it tries
>>to remove them.
>
>There must be a way around all this.

Smarter software. Vuescan for instance seems to be
surprisingly effective in "ignoring" the problems associated
with Kodachrome yet still providing very effective dust
removal. It tends to slow down the scanning quite a lot, but
that's got to be better than spotting by hand.

--
Regards

John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:59 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
<Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:

>

>Before you get a scanner price, be sure to look at the alternatives, like a
>Kodak Photo CD. Weed out the slides you really want, and get a count.

I just got a roll of C-41 processed and i got the Photo CD as an
experiment. Cost me all of $4 more.

Scan produces a 1536 x 1024 pixel image. Enough for a 4" x 6" at good
quality, but I'm sure an 8"x10" would not make you happy.

For what it's worth ...;

Father Kodak
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:38:31 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
wrote:


>
>Smarter software. Vuescan for instance seems to be
>surprisingly effective in "ignoring" the problems associated
>with Kodachrome yet still providing very effective dust
>removal. It tends to slow down the scanning quite a lot, but
>that's got to be better than spotting by hand.

Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)

Kodak
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film) 

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:16:22 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>Father Kodak <dont_bother RemoveThis @IDontCare.COM> writes:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:59 -0400, "Kinon O'cann" wrote:
>
>>> Before you get a scanner price, be sure to look at the
>>> alternatives, like a Kodak Photo CD. Weed out the slides you really
>>> want, and get a count.
>
>> I just got a roll of C-41 processed and i got the Photo CD as an
>> experiment. Cost me all of $4 more.
>>
>> Scan produces a 1536 x 1024 pixel image. Enough for a 4" x 6" at good
>> quality, but I'm sure an 8"x10" would not make you happy.
>
>What you have is a Kodak *Picture CD*. This is a consumer oriented
>product where what you get for your money is some poorly scanned low
>res. JPEGs.

I stand corrected.

Father Kodak (no relation to that sad and declining company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, USA.)

PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or "Father
Foveon?"
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner advice (first film)