I have download the image to PS and try to play with some sharpening and
color balance, I didn't found any resolution different between the two 5000F
scans. The one at left was due to less (or no) sharpen applied, you can try
it out yourself.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reports on forums and personal experience with a Can*n 5000F.
> Ed Hamrick just finished film support for the 5000F, so I had to try it
> out. I scanned an old outtake slide from a graduation
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Combo.jpg>. Be sure to view at 100%,
> some browsers/settings will reduce it to fit on the screen. The bottom
> row of samples are:
>
> 1. 5000F using CanoScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 2. 5000F using VueScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 3. FS2710 using VueScan at 2700 dpi, downsampled to same size as 2400
> dpi scans. I think I sharpened this, not sure.
> 4. Scan #3 with grain reduction applied with NeatImage.
>
> The 2 samples at the top are full pixel versions of #3 & 4 before size
> reduction, so you can see downsizing hasn't changed anything significant.
>
> As you can see, the Canoscan software gives a significantly less
> detailed image with less contrast than VueScan with this scanner. Color
> balance is off too and it crops the image on all sides. Oh, and takes
> 2-3 times as long to scan.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
