D
Don
LOL. That's very good!
Don.
LOL. That's very good!
Don.
O
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
"rb" == rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> writes:
<snip>
rb> My experience with drum scanners is limited to a few
rb> months with a ScanMate 5000. If you check my site
rb> again and look at the two scans by Dave King -- the
rb> one made on the ScanMate was done on the machine that
rb> I got from Dave.
rb> I don't agree with that conclusion. What I see
rb> from Lawrence Smith's two scans is that the Nikon
rb> scan is not in proper focus. This is ISO 100
rb> film pushed two stops. The grain should be clear
rb> in both scans. I know that Lawrence bought his
rb> LS-8000 about the same time as I did and never
rb> liked it very much. He then evaluated an LS-120
rb> and didn't like that much, either. After that,
rb> he got the Howtek 4500.
I agree that you should see grain in both cases. If you look in the
album at <http://www.eurofoto.no/show_album.php?aid=584029> there are
two images, delta_13.jpg and usa_35.jpg. They are unsharpened 5000 DPI
scans from a Scanmate 5000, on Delta 100 and Kodachrome 64 films
respectively. You can easily see grain in both images. Beware, those
are full size scans, not crops, in case you want to download them by
first clicking on the thumbnail and then click on the "Last ned bilde"
button which appears on the right.
On the other hand, I have had the same negative scanned on a Nikon
8000 (I don't own one) and on the Scanmate, and I would definitely say
the Scanmate was better. It may have been a focus issue though, as it
was 120 film, and the glassless carrier was used.
rb> We'll see about that. My LS-8000 has been working
rb> its little butt off since June 2001. Me, I'd be
rb> wary of owning any machine that could only be
rb> serviced by Aztek.
When my Scanmate dies, I suppose it will not be cost-effective to
resurrect it, unless it is something trivial to get spare parts for.
Better to invest in a Nikon or a DSLR, I think.
rb> Aw, c'mon. I've seen that little snippet on the Aztek
rb> site and it's silly as hell. All of the LS-8000 scans
rb> that you see on my snippets site are from my scanner,
rb> with the stock glassless carrier, and with Digital ICE
rb> turned on.
Again, I agree. There is not that much difference between wet and dry
mounting. But correct focus is very critical.
rb> Again, I'll grant drum scanners an edge in dynamic range,
rb> though not enough (for my work or budget) to justify the
rb> huge bother and expense. No drum scanner (to my knowledge)
rb> has digital ICE. If you haven't seen dICE in action, you
rb> don't know what you're missing. And at this point, I
rb> couldn't imagine scanning MF or LF film without it.
If you scan mostly B&W, it does not matter, but it's very nice to have indeed.
rb> Tell you what, if you've got any scan snippets sharper
rb> than what's already posted on my site, send them my way,
rb> and I'll be happy to post them.
rb> In another couple of years I suspect this discussion --
rb> for me at least -- will be totally moot. I figure that's
rb> how long it will take for an affordable DSLR to match
rb> scanned 6x7 format MF film. And when that happens, the
rb> Nikon won't matter much any more.
I have been thinking along the same lines, but on the other hand, it
seems I can get used medium format equipment with excellent optics
cheaper than a comparable digital SLR with comparable optics, so it's
not that clear-cut. For instance, there is a Mamiya RZ67 II with AE
prism, 50mm 4.5 and 180mm 4.5, 3 backs 6x7cm, and polarization filter
for sale locally. Asking price is about 2500$. All in like new
condition.
rb> I do maintain a low-level interest in drum scanners
rb> because I still shoot a bit of LF film. So I watch
rb> the eBay auctions...
I bought mine for about 1/4 of the cost of a new Nikon LS-9000
locally.
If the Nikon had bit a bit more affordable, I would have bought one.
rb> rafe b
rb> www.terrapinphoto.com
rb> scan snippets
rb> www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
<snip>
rb> My experience with drum scanners is limited to a few
rb> months with a ScanMate 5000. If you check my site
rb> again and look at the two scans by Dave King -- the
rb> one made on the ScanMate was done on the machine that
rb> I got from Dave.
rb> I don't agree with that conclusion. What I see
rb> from Lawrence Smith's two scans is that the Nikon
rb> scan is not in proper focus. This is ISO 100
rb> film pushed two stops. The grain should be clear
rb> in both scans. I know that Lawrence bought his
rb> LS-8000 about the same time as I did and never
rb> liked it very much. He then evaluated an LS-120
rb> and didn't like that much, either. After that,
rb> he got the Howtek 4500.
I agree that you should see grain in both cases. If you look in the
album at <http://www.eurofoto.no/show_album.php?aid=584029> there are
two images, delta_13.jpg and usa_35.jpg. They are unsharpened 5000 DPI
scans from a Scanmate 5000, on Delta 100 and Kodachrome 64 films
respectively. You can easily see grain in both images. Beware, those
are full size scans, not crops, in case you want to download them by
first clicking on the thumbnail and then click on the "Last ned bilde"
button which appears on the right.
On the other hand, I have had the same negative scanned on a Nikon
8000 (I don't own one) and on the Scanmate, and I would definitely say
the Scanmate was better. It may have been a focus issue though, as it
was 120 film, and the glassless carrier was used.
rb> We'll see about that. My LS-8000 has been working
rb> its little butt off since June 2001. Me, I'd be
rb> wary of owning any machine that could only be
rb> serviced by Aztek.
When my Scanmate dies, I suppose it will not be cost-effective to
resurrect it, unless it is something trivial to get spare parts for.
Better to invest in a Nikon or a DSLR, I think.
rb> Aw, c'mon. I've seen that little snippet on the Aztek
rb> site and it's silly as hell. All of the LS-8000 scans
rb> that you see on my snippets site are from my scanner,
rb> with the stock glassless carrier, and with Digital ICE
rb> turned on.
Again, I agree. There is not that much difference between wet and dry
mounting. But correct focus is very critical.
rb> Again, I'll grant drum scanners an edge in dynamic range,
rb> though not enough (for my work or budget) to justify the
rb> huge bother and expense. No drum scanner (to my knowledge)
rb> has digital ICE. If you haven't seen dICE in action, you
rb> don't know what you're missing. And at this point, I
rb> couldn't imagine scanning MF or LF film without it.
If you scan mostly B&W, it does not matter, but it's very nice to have indeed.
rb> Tell you what, if you've got any scan snippets sharper
rb> than what's already posted on my site, send them my way,
rb> and I'll be happy to post them.
rb> In another couple of years I suspect this discussion --
rb> for me at least -- will be totally moot. I figure that's
rb> how long it will take for an affordable DSLR to match
rb> scanned 6x7 format MF film. And when that happens, the
rb> Nikon won't matter much any more.
I have been thinking along the same lines, but on the other hand, it
seems I can get used medium format equipment with excellent optics
cheaper than a comparable digital SLR with comparable optics, so it's
not that clear-cut. For instance, there is a Mamiya RZ67 II with AE
prism, 50mm 4.5 and 180mm 4.5, 3 backs 6x7cm, and polarization filter
for sale locally. Asking price is about 2500$. All in like new
condition.
rb> I do maintain a low-level interest in drum scanners
rb> because I still shoot a bit of LF film. So I watch
rb> the eBay auctions...
I bought mine for about 1/4 of the cost of a new Nikon LS-9000
locally.
If the Nikon had bit a bit more affordable, I would have bought one.
rb> rafe b
rb> www.terrapinphoto.com
rb> scan snippets
rb> www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
R
rafe b
IMO, Dave King's two scans (on my scan snippets
page) are the best comparison -- ie., each scan
representing excellent technique.
It's not hard to see, in Dave's two scans, that the
ScanMate is the better of the two machines. Or
at least it was, while it was working. The differences
are subtle, though. My wife didn't really catch on
without some prompting and "guidance."
My #1 concern regarding the drum scanner is
cost-of-ownership. It's a dead or dying technology,
and cost of repairs (and/or shipping) will be
astronomical.
Further photos of Dave's (and my) ScanMate are
posted here:
<www.terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga>
The parts were given to another friend who has
one or two working ScanMates in his shop.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com