I can't comment on the overall merits of the Coolscan V quite
yet. Mine should be arriving tomorrow if I've been living
right.
However, based on extensive experience with the Coolscan II,
which I scarfed off of Joel a few years back, I've got to say
that the biggest variable isn't the scanner or film, but the
operator. I'm of the opinion that there is a lot more to be
dragged off of film that we aren't quite figuring out.
For example, with my Coolscan II:
The Nikon software would give me a good midtone and was pretty
fast, but the gamma was just plain off. It did focus pretty
well, though. Highlights would clip and the shadows were pretty
gut-wrenchingly noisy.
With Vuescan, I found that the auto settings gave me very noisy
shadows, but the highlights were fine. Why? Hmm. This is
where the engineering mind kicks in. I turned off ALL auto
settings in Vuescan and found that the scan was dark--almost 2
stops dark. I adjusted the exposure bias on the first tab and
kept increasing it until histogram would almost clip. (expose to
the right). Only then would I turn any auto settings back on.
It was best with the CS-II, to take the scan and downsize it
about 25% in an editor. This would blend the grain and other
noise better and better match what I'd get from a digital
camera. I always found that the sharpening was best left to a
real editor.
Consider that a scanner IS a digital camera. You need to apply
some of the same rules that we've learned with digital cameras
to scanning negs and trannies.
I'm thinking it will probably take a couple of months for me to
actually get the new scanner optimized. Hey, it took at least
that long with each of my two digital cameras, why wouldn't it
with a scanner? I see all of these comparisons between digital
and film, and I'm just not understanding why film keeps getting
such a poor rating. I look at my film with a loupe and I can
guarantee you that there is far more information there than any
2700dpi scanner could ever hope to pull from it. I doubt that
4000 will even touch some of the details. But the digital
camera photos with 1/4 of the pixels and 1/2 the capturing
surface area using the exact same lenses produce greater detail?
Few photographers are technicians. Fewer are able to engineer.
Drum scans? How many drum scanner operators are true experts at
what they do and even understand how to engineer their way to a
better scan? I've met and known more than a couple "years of
experience--tops in the state" scanner operators that knew squat
about the scanner or the film. They were lucky to pick the
emulsion side of the film! You think the average photographer
is any better?
Once my sparkling new Coolscan V arrives and I've had a chance
to pop a few bubbles in the protective wrap, I'll let you all
know what I think of it and whether or not it was a stupid
mistake. It was a draw between the 5400 and the V, but in the
end it was availability and replaceability that one. The 5400s
(both version) are rare as hens teeth right now.
In the end, I went with the "safe" decision. I trust Nikon
won't bail out of the photography business next week.
If the V satisfies my needs and does a good job, you'll know
because I become a loud cheerleader about those things that were
worth the investment.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|