Do Nikon Coolscans do good job with Kodachrome slides?
in [Scanners]
|
From: me on 3 Dec 2007 12:42 pellicleundies(a)hotmail.com (Obakesan) wrote in news:K7Q4j.69$Wr.54(a)read4.inet.fi: > I think what you've found is simmilar to this > > http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/elitecoolscan.htm > > their findings suggested that for a primairlly kodachrome scanning > that the Minolta did better > Excellent article, thanks for sharing. The one thing missing in their comparison of the Nikon and the Minolta was scan times. The little chart said 60 secs for Minolta and 20 secs for the Nikon Coolscan, but I have a suspicion that's without ICE. Can someone give me an idea how long it takes to scan slides using either the Nikon or Minolta with ICE engaged and scanning at 2400-3000 dpi, including whether you're using the OEM software or Vuescan? For comparison, I currently have an Epson 4990 and when I scan at 2400 dpi using Vuescan with IR cleaning, it takes about 3 mins per slide. If I use Epsons OEM software and ICE, it takes about 6 mins per slide. How much quicker are the Nikon and Minolta? Thanks!
From: Barry Watzman on 4 Dec 2007 00:19 yes, generally. The issue is a conflict between some films and IR scanning. The answer may be to simply turn off Digital ICE and do only a visible light scan. me wrote: > I wrote an earlier post about a problem I was having with strange artifacts > appearing on slide scans using Vuescan IR cleaning and an Epson 4990 Photo > flatbed. Someone asked if they were Kodachrome (they were) cuz they've > been known to have problems with IR cleaning. Some captures: > > no IR cleaning: > > http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee191/cdrw6622/IR-none.jpg > > with IR cleaning: > > http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee191/cdrw6622/IR-light.jpg > > My new question is does Nikon Coolscans with Digital ICE have the same > problem? Have people had good or bad results with Kodachrome slides on > Coolscans? Does it matter if you use Vuescan or the OEM software? In other > words, is the problem with how Vuescan handles Kodachromes or is it the > IR/Digital ICE technology that has problems with Kodachromes? > > I have a bunch of Kodachrome slides and don't want to invest in a Coolscan > if it also has problems with Kodachromes. > > Thanks!!
From: Obakesan on 4 Dec 2007 05:52 Hi google is your friend http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008cCM http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D7qI hth In article <Xns99FB815267F58meherecom(a)63.218.45.254>, me <me(a)here.com> wrote: >pellicleundies(a)hotmail.com (Obakesan) wrote in >news:K7Q4j.69$Wr.54(a)read4.inet.fi: > >> I think what you've found is simmilar to this >> >> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/elitecoolscan.htm >> >> their findings suggested that for a primairlly kodachrome scanning >> that the Minolta did better >> > >Excellent article, thanks for sharing. The one thing missing in their >comparison of the Nikon and the Minolta was scan times. The little chart >said 60 secs for Minolta and 20 secs for the Nikon Coolscan, but I have a >suspicion that's without ICE. Can someone give me an idea how long it >takes to scan slides using either the Nikon or Minolta with ICE engaged and >scanning at 2400-3000 dpi, including whether you're using the OEM software >or Vuescan? > >For comparison, I currently have an Epson 4990 and when I scan at 2400 dpi >using Vuescan with IR cleaning, it takes about 3 mins per slide. If I use >Epsons OEM software and ICE, it takes about 6 mins per slide. How much >quicker are the Nikon and Minolta? > >Thanks! See Ya (when bandwidth gets better ;-) Chris Eastwood Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat please remove undies for reply
From: Mark Kelepouris on 4 Dec 2007 10:38
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:4754e39d$0$2480$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > yes, generally. The issue is a conflict between some films and IR > scanning. The answer may be to simply turn off Digital ICE and do only a > visible light scan. It would be the answer, but the Kodachrome slides will need to be very clean. Mark K. |