From: Nick Fotis on
Kinon O'Cann wrote:

> For large format, what other choices do you have?

I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?

I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is the
only available solution at the moment.

N.F.
From: David J. Littleboy on

"Nick Fotis" <nfotis(a)otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:felsel$2m8a$1(a)ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>
>> For large format, what other choices do you have?
>
> I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
> How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?

Nikon 8000 or 9000, scan in two pieces, merge in Photoshop.

> I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is
> the
> only available solution at the moment.

It's a serious pain with the 8000/9000 (getting the exposure right, no
rotation, and the film flat enough for both scans are all a pain), but it
can be done.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Tony on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:UbGdnUQyD_kWH5PanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Nick Fotis" <nfotis(a)otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:felsel$2m8a$1(a)ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>>
>>> For large format, what other choices do you have?
>>
>> I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
>> How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?
>
> Nikon 8000 or 9000, scan in two pieces, merge in Photoshop.
>
>> I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is
>> the
>> only available solution at the moment.
>
> It's a serious pain with the 8000/9000 (getting the exposure right, no
> rotation, and the film flat enough for both scans are all a pain), but it
> can be done.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples, I
believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on the UK
review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM the Epson
flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I assume that
your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out to be that
different from the Nikon?


From: David J. Littleboy on

"Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote:
>
> David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples,
> I believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on the
> UK review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM the
> Epson flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I
> assume that your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out
> to be that different from the Nikon?

The samples I posted were (if memory serves, but I'm quite sure) not
sharpened.

I simply don't understand what the bloke at i-photo is doing. First of all,
the images should have different magnifications. So one or the other is
resampled, up or down, but he doesn't tell us. Second, no one else in the
known universe has ever seen such close performance between a correctly
focused 8000/9000 and an Epson flatbed. And he gets that with every Epson he
tests.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Tony on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:dZudnSRtL-1xVJPanZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote:
>>
>> David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples,
>> I believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on
>> the UK review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM
>> the Epson flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I
>> assume that your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out
>> to be that different from the Nikon?
>
> The samples I posted were (if memory serves, but I'm quite sure) not
> sharpened.
>
> I simply don't understand what the bloke at i-photo is doing. First of
> all, the images should have different magnifications. So one or the other
> is resampled, up or down, but he doesn't tell us. Second, no one else in
> the known universe has ever seen such close performance between a
> correctly focused 8000/9000 and an Epson flatbed. And he gets that with
> every Epson he tests.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling on
a flatbed maybe not so bad.
>
>


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Rayovac PS3 charger
Next: Direct Compact Flash to Hard Drive