Ron & Dave;
I wish I had some help for you, but I'm really just learning about
producing the best quality scans myself. I do know that shadow detail
is the biggest problem with scanning, especially for lower 'DMax'
scanners. 4.0 dmax is the practical best and is what the 5-figure drum
scanners achieve. My Polaroid is 3.4 or 3.6 depending on whom you
believe. I haven't really challenged it yet. The ES-10 I've heard is
3.2 (which is quite good for it's price range), but Olympus would not
verify any spec for this when I asked them via their tech supp e-mail.
Don't forget that dmax is logarithmic, so 4.0 is not 'just a bit better'
than 3.2 but is actually about 7 or 8 times better than 3.2
George
Dave Bulger wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I'm a new ES-10 owner too. I've got some slides that scan effortlessly &
> well, and some that scan poorly. See my web page mentioned in previous
> posts for excellent examples of this. ::(
>
> I'm still at the point of thinking it's my technique rather than the
> hardware. I've seen numerous references to the fact that the film
> configuration files shipped with the scanner leave a lot to be desired.
> There's some guy on the web that works with this scanner a lot and has
> come up with his own film "drivers". I'll see if I can locate them & let
> you know.
>
> Though I can't help you, I'll be watching this thread with interest.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Spolarich [SMTP:caesar2@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 9:07 PM
> To: Olympus List
> Subject: [OM] Olympus ES-10S Scanner
>
> I'm in need of the lists advice - again. Many of you responded to my
> initial inquiry regarding what scanners list members were using. I can't
> recall anyone mentioning using the Olympus ES-10. Several mentioned the
> Nikon LS-30 as well as the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. Well, staying true to
> Oly, I decided to purchase the ES-10. After several days of use with Adobe
> Photoshop 5.5 I'm thinking of returning it and purchasing the Nikon. But
> before I make that decision, I'd like to be sure it's the right one given
> the cost will jump another $500.
>
> After becoming fairly familiar with Photoshop, the adage "garbage in
> garbage out" has credence when it pertains to the number of pixels scanned.
> If one can gamma correct before scanning one has a better image to work
> with. I also recognize that it isn't necessary nor prudent to scan at high
> res; 200 to 300 is very acceptable. My issue with the ES-10 is that the
> gamma correction tool is a curve tool. A curve tool is a very
> sophisticated tool, at least within Adobe Photoshop. I'm not so sure with
> the ES-10. I labor with slides that are very dark yet contain great detail
> when viewed through a light table. If I scan such a slide at 200> dpi,
> it's almost impossible to lighten the image enough to anywhere near the
> light table image. If I scan at 72 dpi I have greater results yet this
> results in fewer pixels. Negatives and slides that have a broad histogram
> look very good. Flash pictures are difficult because they are high key.
> Is this more a matter of lack of understanding the gamma correction tool,
> dpi scan choice, etc., or is the ES-10 making my life more difficult?
>
> What gamma correction tool(s) does the Nikon offer?
>
> If my only objective is to scan images for web use, is there any advantage
> to purchasing the Nikon? Is 30 bit color scanning better than 24 bit when
> I'm only posting to the web?
>
> Thanks in advance, Ron
>
> caesar2@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ron & Mary Spolarich
> www.mscollectibles.com
>
> << File: ATT00002.htm >>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|