Scanner advice (first film)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've got a TON of old Kodachrome slides from my Navy days in the 60's
and a TON of negatives taken over the years.

I'd like to get a scanner that will do a decent job (say good enough
to make a 5 X 7 print of the resulting scan.

One use would be a quick scan of negatives to look at the picture as a
positive so I can tell if I want to scan further...

Would the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV be a good pick for a
first 'film scanner'?

I don't want to spend an arm and a leg....just yet (however if I
really get into this....you know how these little hobbies escalate
<grin>.


--

Scott in Florida
28 answers Last reply
More about scanner advice first film
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
    news:perme1djqe2pqnorc8ve386n6040sg60as@4ax.com...
    > I've got a TON of old Kodachrome slides from my Navy days in the 60's
    > and a TON of negatives taken over the years.
    >
    > I'd like to get a scanner that will do a decent job (say good enough
    > to make a 5 X 7 print of the resulting scan.
    >
    > One use would be a quick scan of negatives to look at the picture as a
    > positive so I can tell if I want to scan further...
    >
    > Would the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV be a good pick for a
    > first 'film scanner'?
    >
    > I don't want to spend an arm and a leg....just yet (however if I
    > really get into this....you know how these little hobbies escalate
    > <grin>.

    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.
    Getting someone else to do it will save you hundreds of hours, maybe
    thousands.

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Scott in Florida
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

    >
    >"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
    >news:perme1djqe2pqnorc8ve386n6040sg60as@4ax.com...
    >> I've got a TON of old Kodachrome slides from my Navy days in the 60's
    >> and a TON of negatives taken over the years.
    >>
    >> I'd like to get a scanner that will do a decent job (say good enough
    >> to make a 5 X 7 print of the resulting scan.
    >>
    >> One use would be a quick scan of negatives to look at the picture as a
    >> positive so I can tell if I want to scan further...
    >>
    >> Would the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV be a good pick for a
    >> first 'film scanner'?
    >>
    >> I don't want to spend an arm and a leg....just yet (however if I
    >> really get into this....you know how these little hobbies escalate
    >> <grin>.
    >
    >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.
    >Getting someone else to do it will save you hundreds of hours, maybe
    >thousands.
    >
    Good points.

    Unfortunately...when I took a lot of these pictures I was pretty young
    and didn't record much if anything about them.

    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.

    I'm not cast in concrete as to which way to go.

    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....

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


    --

    Scott in Florida
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:47:47 GMT, Scott in Florida
    <JustAsk@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@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
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:44:31 -0700, Father Kodak
    <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

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

    It would have been a hell of a lot easier if I had written good
    notes...but that old hindsight is a bit hard to beat...LOL

    >>
    >>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.)

    lol

    >>
    >>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.

    Well the Kodachromes....I can put on a light box and get an idea if I
    really want to scan them. I also have a couple of old Kodak
    projectors.

    ....but somewhere I must have switched to and Airequipt
    projector....cause I have a bunch of loaded Magazines. Damned if I
    remember that period....but there are some interesting slides...LOL


    >
    >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. :)

    lol...there is a limit...


    >
    >Father Kodak

    --

    Scott in Florida
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> writes:
    > I've got a TON of old Kodachrome slides from my Navy days in the
    > 60's and a TON of negatives taken over the years.
    >
    > I'd like to get a scanner that will do a decent job (say good enough
    > to make a 5 X 7 print of the resulting scan.
    >
    > One use would be a quick scan of negatives to look at the picture as
    > a positive so I can tell if I want to scan further...
    >
    > Would the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV be a good pick for a
    > first 'film scanner'?

    For the price, yes.

    It is a "real" film scanner, and gives much better results than
    a flatbed scanner with a film adapter.

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

    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.

    > I don't want to spend an arm and a leg....just yet (however if I
    > really get into this....you know how these little hobbies escalate
    > <grin>.

    What more expensive scanners buys you are the ability to handle
    more film formats and a more automated workflow. The Minolta is
    fine to get started scanning.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

    >Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> writes:
    >> I've got a TON of old Kodachrome slides from my Navy days in the
    >> 60's and a TON of negatives taken over the years.
    >>
    >> I'd like to get a scanner that will do a decent job (say good enough
    >> to make a 5 X 7 print of the resulting scan.
    >>
    >> One use would be a quick scan of negatives to look at the picture as
    >> a positive so I can tell if I want to scan further...
    >>
    >> Would the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV be a good pick for a
    >> first 'film scanner'?
    >
    >For the price, yes.
    >
    >It is a "real" film scanner, and gives much better results than
    >a flatbed scanner with a film adapter.
    >
    >Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan, and most film
    >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.

    Of course....I have both Kodachrome and B&W mixed in with C-41.

    Did anyone ever promise us that life would be easy?


    >
    >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.
    >
    >> I don't want to spend an arm and a leg....just yet (however if I
    >> really get into this....you know how these little hobbies escalate
    >> <grin>.
    >
    >What more expensive scanners buys you are the ability to handle
    >more film formats and a more automated workflow. The Minolta is
    >fine to get started scanning.

    I think I may just spring for it and see how it goes.

    Of course if I really find a slide or negative that I want a really
    great scan of...I can take it down to the local photography shop. In
    our town we still have some die hard film people and their lab is
    excellent.


    --

    Scott in Florida
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    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
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak
    <dont_bother@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
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:24:44 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
    wrote:

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

    Any ideas?

    >
    >>>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.

    --

    Scott in Florida
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Father Kodak <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes:
    > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

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

    > Why is that?

    The emulsion is not transparent to IR, which scanners rely on to
    remove defects.

    >> 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?

    No, same problem as 'chromes. Silver halide is not transparent to IR.

    > Among these various scanners, do you have first-hand experience?

    Yes, with all of them.

    > Can any of them produce RAW files?

    AFAIK, not with the manufacturer's software (there may be third
    party software that available that let you access RAW data.
    Out of the box, they produce 8 and 16-bit TIFF.

    The Minolta has a bit depth of 16 bit/channel, Nikon Coolscan V has
    a bit depth of 14bit/channel, and the Coolscan IV has a bit depth of
    12 bit/channel.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Dual Scan IV includes Photoshop Elements-2.

    I don't think it can process 16bit.

    Otherwise the software is sufficient for most needs of processing, editing
    and printing.

    The dual scan seems to be somewhat quirky to use- users have reported
    frequent crashes and installation problems.

    Some have reported that the scanner works much better using a 3rd part
    program called Vuescan, for an additional $80...

    At 3200max dpi, the Dual Scan is sufficient for the needs of most users and
    will creat a file with enough resolution to print at up to 11x13 / 300dpi.

    I am considering the Dual Scan for conversion of my C-41 neg archive and to
    ween myself from my digital camera.

    Best,

    Ross

    >
    > AFAIK, not with the manufacturer's software (there may be third
    > party software that available that let you access RAW data.
    > Out of the box, they produce 8 and 16-bit TIFF.
    >
    > The Minolta has a bit depth of 16 bit/channel, Nikon Coolscan V has
    > a bit depth of 14bit/channel, and the Coolscan IV has a bit depth of
    > 12 bit/channel.
    > --
    > - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> writes:
    > John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

    >>>> Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan

    >>> 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.

    There is. Film scanners has profiles for different emulsions and film
    types. You set up the scanner for Kodakchrome, and it will optimize
    the scan for that film type. The Nikon Coolscan, for instance, will
    simply ignore the information the IR channel in "Kodachrome"-mode.

    What I meant when I said that Kodachromes are difficult, is that
    because some of the automatic "tricks" that the scanner can pull
    with C-41 stock do not work well on Kodachrome, you need to be more
    careful when you tune the manual settings, and also expect to do
    more post-processing to remove dust, scratches, etc. when scanning
    Kodachrome.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

    >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:24:44 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak
    >><dont_bother@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
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:25:03 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
    <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

    >Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> writes:
    >> John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:29:16 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Note that Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to scan
    >
    >>>> 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.
    >
    >There is. Film scanners has profiles for different emulsions and film
    >types. You set up the scanner for Kodakchrome, and it will optimize
    >the scan for that film type. The Nikon Coolscan, for instance, will
    >simply ignore the information the IR channel in "Kodachrome"-mode.
    >
    >What I meant when I said that Kodachromes are difficult, is that
    >because some of the automatic "tricks" that the scanner can pull
    >with C-41 stock do not work well on Kodachrome, you need to be more
    >careful when you tune the manual settings, and also expect to do
    >more post-processing to remove dust, scratches, etc. when scanning
    >Kodachrome.

    Thanks.

    Sounds like this could be a bit more of an adventure than I had
    guessed at the beginning (isn't that always the case<g>).


    --

    Scott in Florida
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:57:27 -0400, "John Doe"
    <lipman_r@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    >Dual Scan IV includes Photoshop Elements-2.

    I've have both 2 and 3...so I should be set.
    >
    >I don't think it can process 16bit.
    >
    >Otherwise the software is sufficient for most needs of processing, editing
    >and printing.
    >
    >The dual scan seems to be somewhat quirky to use- users have reported
    >frequent crashes and installation problems.
    >
    >Some have reported that the scanner works much better using a 3rd part
    >program called Vuescan, for an additional $80...
    >
    >At 3200max dpi, the Dual Scan is sufficient for the needs of most users and
    >will creat a file with enough resolution to print at up to 11x13 / 300dpi.
    >
    >I am considering the Dual Scan for conversion of my C-41 neg archive and to
    >ween myself from my digital camera.

    I have a room full of old Minolta gear (SRT 101 era)....and just can't
    seem to part with it (although their value now is so low I just might
    as well keep it).


    >
    >Best,
    >
    >Ross
    >
    >>
    >> AFAIK, not with the manufacturer's software (there may be third
    >> party software that available that let you access RAW data.
    >> Out of the box, they produce 8 and 16-bit TIFF.
    >>
    >> The Minolta has a bit depth of 16 bit/channel, Nikon Coolscan V has
    >> a bit depth of 14bit/channel, and the Coolscan IV has a bit depth of
    >> 12 bit/channel.
    >> --
    >> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >

    --

    Scott in Florida
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

    >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:49:00 GMT, Scott in Florida
    ><JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:24:44 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:34:10 -0700, Father Kodak
    >>><dont_bother@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.

    I'll give the 'stock' software a run for a bit...and keep this advice
    in the back of my head. Thanks.


    --

    Scott in Florida
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    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
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:38:31 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@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
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:53:32 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:

    > 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.

    Sounds like you got a Picture CD, which contains JPG files that
    are 1536x1024 pixels (from 35mm) and 1536x864 pixels (from Advanced
    Photo System film). Each Picture CD can hold images from only one
    roll of film, partly because each CD also contains imaging software.

    Photo CDs on the other hand can hold images from many rolls of
    film, basically limited only by what fits on the CD. This is
    usually over 100 images, or about 5 rolls of film. Each PhotoCD
    contain PCD files which have five copies of each image at
    resolutions ranging from 192x128 to 3072x2048 pixels. If you use
    IrfanView to view PCD images, it defaults to showing the 768 x 512
    pixel version.

    To show either of the largest two image sizes (1536x1024 or
    3072x2048) you have to download and install the PhotoCD plugin.
    There's also a Pro Photo CD designed that's really designed for
    images from MF roll film and 4x5 sheets which adds a sixth
    resolution image of 6144x4096 pixels. IrfanView doesn't have an
    option to display these 24mp images.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:55:14 -0700, Father Kodak
    <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:38:31 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@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?)

    It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
    are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.

    I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
    anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
    look pretty but it does the job.

    --
    Regards

    John Bean
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
    wrote:


    >>
    >>Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
    >>(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)
    >
    >It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
    >are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.
    >

    Specifically for black and white films? Great!

    >I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
    >anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
    >look pretty but it does the job.

    Which competitors have you looked at? Nikon? Minolta? SilverFast?
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean
    <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
    >It does indeen.

    "Indeen"? Where did that come from?

    "Indeed" is the word I though I'd typed...

    --
    Regards

    John Bean
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Father Kodak <dont_bother@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.

    A Kodak *Photo CD* is a different animal, targeted towards the
    professional marked. A Kodak Photo CD will give you scans up to
    6144 x 4096 px (25 Mpx) in a weird proprietary non-lossy format
    called ImagePacs. It will cost you a lot more then $ 4.00 (if it
    is available at all any more - Kodak seems to be phasing out
    everything of quality that this once great company has come up with).
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

    >Father Kodak <dont_bother@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?"
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:33:00 -0700, Father Kodak
    <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

    >On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
    >>>(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)
    >>
    >>It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
    >>are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.
    >>
    >
    >Specifically for black and white films? Great!

    It even has profiles for some film/developer combinations.
    Saves a lot of time sometimes even with an unsupported
    combinations because you can often get close to what you
    want, minimising the fine-tuning.

    >>I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
    >>anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
    >>look pretty but it does the job.
    >
    >Which competitors have you looked at? Nikon? Minolta? SilverFast?

    I've used it with Nikon (LS-30), Minolta (Scan Dual III) and
    now with an Epson 4990. In all cases Vuescan produces
    significantly better scans than the software supplied with
    the scanner, though the scanner OEM software is often
    simpler to use for non-critical scanning tasks. I've also
    tried Silverfast which produces nice results once I fought
    my way through the odd user interface but since it's not as
    flexible as Vuescan - and more expensive - I didn't pursue
    it.

    Vuescan's user interface puts some people off - it's *very*
    plain and functional, no frills at all. I like that :-)

    --
    Regards

    John Bean
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:31:32 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:

    > PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or
    > "Father Foveon?"

    Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:46:06 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:31:32 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:
    >
    >> PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or
    >> "Father Foveon?"
    >
    > Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.

    .... Just asking, hypothetically, you know....

    Father Kodak
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:13:36 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:

    > > Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.
    >
    > ... Just asking, hypothetically, you know....
    >
    > Father Kodak

    s'OK. As long as you don't call me Asok (no relation).
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Scanners Cameras