C
ColinD
I have attempted to scan around 200 35mm negatives using the 30-frame (5
strips of 6 negs) on my 9950F. They are all indoor flash shots, and
setting backlight to low, and manual exposure to 110% I get excellent
scans for sharpness and color rendering - but when the scanner saws the
scans into 30 individual images, some are cropped more than others, in
fact the centre strip of negs loses about 10% of its width. The scanned
images should be about 24mm wide, but are actually only about 21 - 22mm
wide.
A similar problem occurs with scanning slides, 12 at a time. Some of
the slides are cropped nearly square, losing about a third of the image
in the long dimension.
Has anybody else struck this problem, was it solvable, and if so, how?
I think the Scangear CS software is faulty in its coding for finding the
edges of the images, or possibly the image positions are hard-wired into
the program, and registration errors with the negative frame may be to
blame.
Whatever, it's a damn nuisance.
Colin D.
PS: Silverfast is too expensive for me, and doesn't support dust and
scratch removal (FARE, the Canon version of ICE works well in Scangear
CS); and Vuescan trial version gave me real crappy colors, unusable.
strips of 6 negs) on my 9950F. They are all indoor flash shots, and
setting backlight to low, and manual exposure to 110% I get excellent
scans for sharpness and color rendering - but when the scanner saws the
scans into 30 individual images, some are cropped more than others, in
fact the centre strip of negs loses about 10% of its width. The scanned
images should be about 24mm wide, but are actually only about 21 - 22mm
wide.
A similar problem occurs with scanning slides, 12 at a time. Some of
the slides are cropped nearly square, losing about a third of the image
in the long dimension.
Has anybody else struck this problem, was it solvable, and if so, how?
I think the Scangear CS software is faulty in its coding for finding the
edges of the images, or possibly the image positions are hard-wired into
the program, and registration errors with the negative frame may be to
blame.
Whatever, it's a damn nuisance.
Colin D.
PS: Silverfast is too expensive for me, and doesn't support dust and
scratch removal (FARE, the Canon version of ICE works well in Scangear
CS); and Vuescan trial version gave me real crappy colors, unusable.