Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: More on Scanner's

Subject: [OM] Re: More on Scanner's
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:17:56 -0800
swisspace wrote:

>How brave are you feeling, fancy posting some links to slides 
>(preferably kodachromes) you have posted stating which scanner you used 
>so I can do a full evaluation, 
>
Alright, here are shots of from the two rolls of film I shot in Havasu 
Canyon in 1970. About half are Kodachrome and the rest are another 
chrome. See if you see any big difference that says one can be scanned 
ok and another not <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/>.

These were scanned a while ago on a Canon FS2710 at 2720 dpi, using 
VueScan. Looking at them now, I think I oversharpened some. Otherwise, 
they look pretty good to me. I've never understood the trouble I hear 
about scanning Kodachrome. I don't know whether I am particularly 
talented and/or lucky in my choice of hardware and software and my 
ability to use them. Whatever combo it may be, scanning various sorts of 
slides just doesn't make any real difference.

Anybody know which is which in these samples? Interesting how things 
change in our lives. Back in 1970, I had a Nikon Ftn with a single lens, 
Nikkor 50/2. Film and processing were expensive, I only had one lens and 
the topography limited the angles of view, so I didn't take very many 
pictures. If I were to go there today for the same length of time, I 
can't imagine coming out with less than hundreds of images. I can 
particularly remember things I could see, and wanted to shoot, but that 
would just be too tiny on film. Not much later, the Nikon went for an 
OM-1, and the second lens was a 1002.8.

Because these are pictures from a classic destination and a classic trip 
in my life, I've just rescanned them with the FS4000 at 4000 dpi. The 
lower falls changed dramatically a few years later when the big 
overhanging mineral deposits fell off. Pixel peeping, 4000 dpi clearly 
pulls a bit more detail out, but you wouldn't see the difference at 
anything less at least a 12x18 print. Other than that, color, contrast, 
etc. are quite comparable, as I would expect with successive models from 
the same maker.

Most of these shots are in direct late May Arizona sunshine, so the 
subjects had a very wide range of brightness. Neither scanner seems to 
have any trouble capturing the full range that is on the film. I'm going 
to be doing some more playing, and may discover other differences, but I 
can already say they will be subtle.

The IR channel of the Kodachromes does show more image detail than is 
usual with other slide films, as one would expect, but it doesn't seem 
to cause any trouble that I can see. Of course, I'm not using ICE or 
FARE, but whatever Ed puts in Vuescan, for dust removal.

If these don't answer you questions, as regards one brand fof film 
scanner, perhaps you could be more specific about what kind of problems 
you are encountering.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz