Digital BW, The Print

Any take on these scanners? Another list is trying to plan on the
demise of Nikon/Minolta. especially for 35mm.
Thanks!

The reviews I have read on these scanners indicate to me that they can not
take up the slack with the loss of Minolta and Nikon scanners. I presently
have Minolta's 5400 and have had my Microtek 120tf fail (communications
board - no spares available). I have considered several scanners and settled
on Epson's 750 pro. The real resolution of this scanner is about 2600 dpi
color and 3400 dpi B&W negative. For medium format and larger, this is
acceptable but for 3500 it is not if a high rel scan is required (the 5400
does indeed deliver 5400 dpi) To achieve these numbers, it is necessary to
buy some carriers from Better Scanning. I mostly use the larger glass
carrier as it does a better job of holding the negative flat and multiple
formats can be scanned after a mask has been made.

 

Bob

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
Schwartz
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:24 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Pacific Image Scanners

 

  

Any take on these scanners? Another list is trying to plan on the
demise of Nikon/Minolta. especially for 35mm.
Thanks!





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We have a Pacific Image Primefilm 7250 pro in our studio

and it is easily on par with the Nikon. We print 30" X 40" from 35mm  
chromes

with excellent results so I would recommend  this scanner.

Possibly their lesser machines are lesser.

J.Z.

Hi all

Unfortunately, the PrimeFilm 7250Pro does not have a terrific DMax compare to Nikon; 3.6 vs 4.2, this is a big step in slide scanning.


Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...

Lew,
My neighbor has the Primefilm 7250 Pro.3.. So I'm reasonably familiar with it thru him and I've used it.. I have 2 drum scanners, a Heidelberg Prepress flatbed  & 2 Nikon LS 5000's.. In all honesty the best thing it has going for it is the price..  I absolutly do not believe their optical resolution claim of 7200.. Maybe more like 3600 at best ..When scanning at 7200 you do get a bigger file but you do not get more information.. You do just as well with tactful interpolation which is what I think their doing.. I also feel that the Dmax is overrated a bit.. They claim 3.6 which I think is to high...maybe 3.2 ...In all fairness to them Nikon claims 4.0 I think  with the LS5000 and I feel that was a bit over rated also.. We have gone head to head with the Nikon and the Prime film.. the Nikon was a clear and easy winner but I personally don't feel the scans from the Nikon are world class either .. but yes they are absolutly significantly better .. both the scanners owner and I felt that.. My honest suggestion would be to have a scan done off one prior to stepping up.. Then the proof is in the pudding ...If your ok with what it does then go for it.. If not then try to get a used Nikon or Minolta..Sadly you'll pay more as these things used are going in many cases for more then they were when new.  Anyway that's my nickle on it..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lew Schwartz 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:24 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Pacific Image Scanners


    
  Any take on these scanners? Another list is trying to plan on the
  demise of Nikon/Minolta. especially for 35mm.
  Thanks!


  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5140 - Release Date: 07/18/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Lew

You're right about saying that , although the Nikon's scans are better, they are not world class. I'm fighting a lot to get a decent, if not good, scan from my slides.

I (sometimes) get nice and clean results but I must stay away from "Digital Ice"; I don't know where Nikon bought the patent but it produces so many artifacts from the scans, that the result is non-usable. Actually I've sent some scans to Nikon only to get a "software limits" issue from them.

I'll try to get better results from a third party scanning software (VueScan) but I doubt it.

DMax overrated? I don't think so. For my 4x5, I usually go with the flow but for 35mm, the higher the better. The Heidelberg Prepress (I don't know the exact model) is quite a machine! Since I have a large collection of slides, options are still open.

I'm sticking to my Nikon LS-500 ED IV (although Nikon is not supporting my OS choice). I'm scanning with an older computer and processing the results in a newer one. This is a bit of a hassle but… companies don't care too much about compatibility these days.


Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@videotron.qc.ca

Scanning software
	I personally have been using Silverfast for the past 9 years. I have
compared it to Vuescan and there is no comparison as Silverfast is much
better. Two of the scanners I have had included Silverfast while the third
(Minolta 5400) did not. I forked out the money and am glad I did.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacques
Caron
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:15 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Pacific Image Scanners

Hi Lew

You're right about saying that , although the Nikon's scans are better, they
are not world class. I'm fighting a lot to get a decent, if not good, scan
from my slides.

I (sometimes) get nice and clean results but I must stay away from "Digital
Ice"; I don't know where Nikon bought the patent but it produces so many
artifacts from the scans, that the result is non-usable. Actually I've sent
some scans to Nikon only to get a "software limits" issue from them.

I'll try to get better results from a third party scanning software
(VueScan) but I doubt it.

DMax overrated? I don't think so. For my 4x5, I usually go with the flow but
for 35mm, the higher the better. The Heidelberg Prepress (I don't know the
exact model) is quite a machine! Since I have a large collection of slides,
options are still open.

I'm sticking to my Nikon LS-500 ED IV (although Nikon is not supporting my
OS choice). I'm scanning with an older computer and processing the results
in a newer one. This is a bit of a hassle but. companies don't care too much
about compatibility these days.


Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...






------------------------------------

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Links

I wouldn't put any weight on published d-max claims.  Usually, they're
nothing more than some theoretical best-case scenario with no testing to
back them up. A quick scan of step wedge will give much better info.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> You're right about saying that , although the Nikon's scans are better, 
> they are not world class. I'm fighting a lot to get a decent, if not good, 
> scan from my slides.

I've used the Nikon and Minolta scanners in the past, but these days I'm 
redoing most of my old transparencies (from 1960 onwards) with a D800E. Far 
better, and allows me to use ACR or Lightroom to improve the originals.

Bob Frost

A couple of us are working on a Dslr copy-stand style scanner.  We use
a macro lens at 1:1 and capture tiles of a negative.  For instance,
with a 6x7 negative, I use 26 tiles with my d200.  We then use
stitching software to put the tiles together.  If you need more
dynamic range, you can use exposure blending.  Using this system, I
can capture better fine detail than with my Screen Cezanne, a
professional pre-press scanner.  Currently we're working on automating
the process.  There are threads about the project at the Large Format
Photography Forum.  One of them is:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87539-DSLR-Scanner-Negative-Stages

-Peter

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Bob Frost <bobfrost@...> wrote:
>> You're right about saying that , although the Nikon's scans are better,
>> they are not world class. I'm fighting a lot to get a decent, if not good,
>> scan from my slides.
>
> I've used the Nikon and Minolta scanners in the past, but these days I'm
> redoing most of my old transparencies (from 1960 onwards) with a D800E. Far
> better, and allows me to use ACR or Lightroom to improve the originals.
>
> Bob Frost
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks Bob for the input; are you using a copy stand, a duplicator or some kind of homemade rig?


Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...

I'd be interested to hear more about the copy stand approach. Many of the
35mm crowd believe that this will be an easy and effective fall back when
their Nikon/Minolta scanners fail.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jacques Caron <
jacques.caron@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thanks Bob for the input; are you using a copy stand, a duplicator or some
> kind of homemade rig?
>
> Jacques Caron
> Photographe
> jacques.caron@...
>
>  
>



-- 
-Lew Schwartz


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use a Beseler Slide Duplicator.  Peter Krogh recommends this approach,
but I still get better results with my Nikon LS5000.  If it ever quit, I
guess I would use the in-camera scanning method.

http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

Tina

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote:

> I'd be interested to hear more about the copy stand approach. Many of the
> 35mm crowd believe that this will be an easy and effective fall back when
> their Nikon/Minolta scanners fail.
>
>
-- 
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here's an early prototype:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/side_view_2-1.jpg

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote:
> I'd be interested to hear more about the copy stand approach. Many of the
> 35mm crowd believe that this will be an easy and effective fall back when
> their Nikon/Minolta scanners fail.
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jacques Caron <
> jacques.caron@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Thanks Bob for the input; are you using a copy stand, a duplicator or some
>> kind of homemade rig?
>>
>> Jacques Caron
>> Photographe
>> jacques.caron@...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Lew Schwartz
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

OpticFilm 120 | Introduction | Plustek

This looks very promising and their entry level scanners aren't all that bad. Maybe not up to Nikon 5000ED standards, but quite good and relatively cheap. 


Cheers,

Feli




______________________________________________________________
feli2@...		     		2 + 2 = 4		  		 www.elanphotos.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I either use Nikon's simple Slide Copying Adapter ES-1, or an even cheaper 
compact slide copying adapter from SRB-griturn 
http://www.srb-griturn.com/slide-copying-308-c.asp. The latter has the 
advantage of closer focusing with my Nikon 60mm micro. I use a couple of old 
filter rings between the lens and the compact adapter to get the 
transparency to fill the frame. The Nikon has a sliding tube to allow for 
framing, but this doesn't suit all lenses.

With the Nikon D800E the resolution is better than the nikon or minolta 
scanners - a real 5000 dpi with all the advantages of raw processing.

Bob Frost

That is serious stuff!!

Bob Frost

--------------------------------------------------
From: "pdesmidt tds.net" <pdesmidt@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:44 PM
scanner.  We use

> a macro lens at 1:1 and capture tiles of a negative.  For instance,
> with a 6x7 negative, I use 26 tiles with my d200.  We then use
> stitching software to put the tiles together.  If you need more
> dynamic range, you can use exposure blending.  Using this system, I
> can capture better fine detail than with my Screen Cezanne, a
> professional pre-press scanner.  Currently we're working on automating
> the process.  There are threads about the project at the Large Format
> Photography Forum.  One of them is:
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87539-DSLR-Scanner-Negative-Stages

Yes, I suspected today's dslrs could improve on the Nikon scanners and 
actually be faster too. The more with 35mm slides and exposure blending. 
I also think that adapting the light source to 5000K full spectrum for 
Ektachrome and 3000K full spectrum for Kodachrome might improve the 
last's color fidelity. A Kodachrome IT8 target for calibration then, 
Silverfast sells them. A blue LED that fits exactly the sensor's blue 
filter spectrally may improve B&W film resolution. I have done some of 
this with scanners but the dslr will give more flexibility.

There is an interesting 8-16mm movie film to digital converter made in 
Holland with a flying spot light source. For B&W stills that could also 
be a good concept.

Bowens Illumitran's are still available secondhand.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad, pi\ufffdzografie, gicl\ufffde
www.pigment-print.com

But there is no Digital-Ice in a camera. If you got old dirty slides or negs, you have lots of work to do after you shoot.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jul 20, 2012, at 3:47 AM, Bob Frost wrote:

> I either use Nikon's simple Slide Copying Adapter ES-1, or an even cheaper 
> compact slide copying adapter from SRB-griturn 
> http://www.srb-griturn.com/slide-copying-308-c.asp. The latter has the 
> advantage of closer focusing with my Nikon 60mm micro. I use a couple of old 
> filter rings between the lens and the compact adapter to get the 
> transparency to fill the frame. The Nikon has a sliding tube to allow for 
> framing, but this doesn't suit all lenses.
> 
> With the Nikon D800E the resolution is better than the nikon or minolta 
> scanners - a real 5000 dpi with all the advantages of raw processing.
> 
> Bob Frost
>

Hi,

ASMP did a copy stand project for the Library of Congress that might be of interest. 

http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning

I purchased an inexpensive copy stand from Amazon and a beautiful LED "light pad" from BH Photo that works very well for my MF, 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies and negatives. 

I doubt that I will scan ever again. However, I will probably send out for drum scans if I need to make large prints above 30 x 40 or so.

Logan 4x5 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/179861-REG/Logan_Electric_750219_4_x_5_Slim.html

Logan 8x10 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/127288-REG/Logan_Electric_750181_8_x_10_Slim_Edge.html

Regards,

Tim


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Caron <jacques.caron@...> wrote:

>
> Thanks Bob for the input; are you using a copy stand, a duplicator or some kind of homemade rig?
> 
> 
> Jacques Caron
> Photographe
> jacques.caron@...
>

How even is the light from those Logans, any hot spots?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jul 20, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Tim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ASMP did a copy stand project for the Library of Congress that might be of interest. 
> 
> http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning
> 
> I purchased an inexpensive copy stand from Amazon and a beautiful LED "light pad" from BH Photo that works very well for my MF, 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies and negatives. 
> 
> I doubt that I will scan ever again. However, I will probably send out for drum scans if I need to make large prints above 30 x 40 or so.
> 
> Logan 4x5 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/179861-REG/Logan_Electric_750219_4_x_5_Slim.html
> 
> Logan 8x10 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/127288-REG/Logan_Electric_750181_8_x_10_Slim_Edge.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tim
>

Mark,
Ice is handy that's for sure but using it actually takes the overall scan quality backwards.. If you scan a slide with it turned off an dthen again turned on it's visible ..But yes less work..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Savoia 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Pacific Image Scanners


    
  But there is no Digital-Ice in a camera. If you got old dirty slides or negs, you have lots of work to do after you shoot.

  Mark
  http://www.stillrivereditions.com

  On Jul 20, 2012, at 3:47 AM, Bob Frost wrote:

  > I either use Nikon's simple Slide Copying Adapter ES-1, or an even cheaper 
  > compact slide copying adapter from SRB-griturn 
  > http://www.srb-griturn.com/slide-copying-308-c.asp. The latter has the 
  > advantage of closer focusing with my Nikon 60mm micro. I use a couple of old 
  > filter rings between the lens and the compact adapter to get the 
  > transparency to fill the frame. The Nikon has a sliding tube to allow for 
  > framing, but this doesn't suit all lenses.
  > 
  > With the Nikon D800E the resolution is better than the nikon or minolta 
  > scanners - a real 5000 dpi with all the advantages of raw processing.
  > 
  > Bob Frost
  > 



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5142 - Release Date: 07/19/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

True it does lose a bit of sharpness but I would rather spend 10 seconds applying sharpening then 60 minutes retouching out scratches. But that is just me, we scan many old slides from clients who stored them in basements, attics, back seat of car, in underwear drawer (you get the point).

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:49 AM, jimbo wrote:

> Mark,
> Ice is handy that's for sure but using it actually takes the overall scan quality backwards.. If you scan a slide with it turned off an dthen again turned on it's visible ..But yes less work..
> 
> jimbo

On 20/07/2012 6:10 PM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> A blue LED that fits exactly the sensor's blue
> filter spectrally may improve B&W film resolution.

That's an interesting idea, Ernst. Could you explain why that would 
work, please?

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Ernst,
I don't talk about it much but I've been using a DSLR and Illumitran combo 
for some time now.. For each film type I make a custom profile including 
Kodachrome ( Silverfast is almost out of the last in existance 200 bucks 
each)..for the individual camera/ lens used. I have built units for both 
Nikon and Canon camera's.. We are now at a place where the bar has been 
raised significantly by using the 800e / live view & capture. Their are many 
ways to go with this process... A good flat field copy lens works quite well 
on a bellows or remove the bellows and use a focusing rail with a micro lens 
.. Parts for the conversions are getting harder to get.. I typically replace 
the stock bellows with a PB-6 which is the only one Nikon reccomends using 
on the new DSLR"s The newer cameras don't work on the stock bellows due to 
body size. Were just trying to build semi production units to solve the 
problem for shooters that have a huge inventory of 35mm. It's just not 
feasible to take on scanning 50k or more slides with any scanning process .. 
they are just all too slow.. so not really feasible.. once their digital 
their marketable and you can always go back and drum scan an item on request 
if needed..  The process is filled with challenges moving forward but for 
35mm it's very workable.

jimbo


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Ernst Dinkla" <e.dinkla@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Pacific Image Scanners


>
>
> Yes, I suspected today's dslrs could improve on the Nikon scanners and
> actually be faster too. The more with 35mm slides and exposure blending.
> I also think that adapting the light source to 5000K full spectrum for
> Ektachrome and 3000K full spectrum for Kodachrome might improve the
> last's color fidelity. A Kodachrome IT8 target for calibration then,
> Silverfast sells them. A blue LED that fits exactly the sensor's blue
> filter spectrally may improve B&W film resolution. I have done some of
> this with scanners but the dslr will give more flexibility.
>
> There is an interesting 8-16mm movie film to digital converter made in
> Holland with a flying spot light source. For B&W stills that could also
> be a good concept.
>
> Bowens Illumitran's are still available secondhand.
>
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
>
> Dinkla Grafische Techniek
> Quad, pi\ufffdzografie, gicl\ufffde
> www.pigment-print.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
> and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files 
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND 
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE 
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5142 - Release Date: 07/19/12
>

I understand your logic.. but it only holds true for me with a segment of the market.. and that is not typically the pro's .. I have (8) 4 drawer filing cabintets full of slides..all properly stored.. God know how many beyond that in the original slide boxes....Anyway point is properly cared for slides are one market and not properly cared for slides are yet another and also a bucket of shit that I can just look them in the eye and tell them I need to wet mount the slide..  Which by the way is an option that could be developed for a DSLR repro effort so ruling it out would be a mistake. LOL...how about a Gepe anti neuton glass slide mount and a tube of scanning gell ...now I'm sharing a secret...:-).. oops....... Anyway puter clean up time on a trash slide is billable labor ....were just service providers.. 

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Savoia 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Pacific Image Scanners


    
  True it does lose a bit of sharpness but I would rather spend 10 seconds applying sharpening then 60 minutes retouching out scratches. But that is just me, we scan many old slides from clients who stored them in basements, attics, back seat of car, in underwear drawer (you get the point).

  Mark
  http://www.stillrivereditions.com

  On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:49 AM, jimbo wrote:

  > Mark,
  > Ice is handy that's for sure but using it actually takes the overall scan quality backwards.. If you scan a slide with it turned off an dthen again turned on it's visible ..But yes less work..
  > 
  > jimbo



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5142 - Release Date: 07/19/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 07/20/2012 03:13 PM, Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
> On 20/07/2012 6:10 PM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>> A blue LED that fits exactly the sensor's blue
>> filter spectrally may improve B&W film resolution.
>
> That's an interesting idea, Ernst. Could you explain why that would
> work, please?
>
> Peter Marquis-Kyle


I have used that on the Nikon 8000 scanner for B&W scans. Years ago I 
made my own wet mount filmholder and tweaked it to get the best overall 
sharpness around the edges for 6x9s. In Vuescan you can change the scan 
exposure per LED and take out either the Red + Green LED light or any 
other combo and use only the remaining LED, in this case the Blue one. I 
checked whether the scanner also does the auto-focusing with the Blue 
LED only and it does. I export the file as "DNG RAW" but the negative 
scan made positive so I can use the Photoshop ACR tools like the 
deconvolution sharpening easily. The yellow image is converted to a B&W 
image with ACR's filtering. Grain is half removed with Neat Image in 
Photoshop. The scans are the best I have made so far with that scanner.

My view on this is that with less LEDs involved and the ones used in a 
small spectral range with the shortest waves, like Blue LEDs are, plus 
an educated guess that Nikon used LEDs that fit the sensor's Blue filter 
best, I would get less flare and pixel blooming, the least light 
diffraction on the film grain and pull more information from the 
negative in total. With Tim Vitale I still think that I see aliased 
grain in the scan but now of a smaller size than with the other methods. 
The deconvolution sharpening does its work on the total of optical flaws 
from the camera lens film combination to the scan optics.

There have been more discussions on using only the Green separation of 
an RGB scan for B&W as it is the sharpest but I think that better 
sharpness is the compromise in focusing when all RGB channels are used. 
The suggestion that there is moire noise in the Blue separation is not 
what I have seen when I made separate scans with only the Blue or the 
Green LEDs used. I think this idea of less noise in the Green separation 
is exported from digital camera use where there are more Green pixels on 
the sensor than R or B. A linear CCD in a scanner has an equal number of 
sensor wells for R+G+B.

Given the last lines the use of a Green LED for B&W copying may be a 
better idea for DSLRs. The 2x number of Green pixels will outweigh the 
advantage of the shorter wavelength of Blue light.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad, pi\ufffdzografie, gicl\ufffde
www.pigment-print.com

I thought the Nikon 8000 scanner was the best digital investment I'd made after messing with other methods of getting my medium format B&W negatives into the computer.  I was making 8x10 B&W internegatives (positives, actually).  Then I used a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter.  I ended up with lots of pixels, but the overall image quality of the Nikon 8000 was better, and the workflow way easier.  If/when the Nikon 8000 scanner crashes, it would be very nice if a DSLR could be used, but I'd be surprised if even at 36 mp they are up to the quality of the dedicated film scanner.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Here's a detail from a small section of a 6x7 Acros negative.

The first one is from a Screen Cezanne at 4000spi:
http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Lighthouse_Cezanne.jpg

The second is from a dslr (a d200) with a 55mm Nikkor 3.5F, an old macro
lens:
http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/LightHousePTGui.jpg

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I thought the Nikon 8000 scanner was the best digital investment I'd made
> after messing with other methods of getting my medium format B&W negatives
> into the computer. I was making 8x10 B&W internegatives (positives,
> actually). Then I used a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter. I
> ended up with lots of pixels, but the overall image quality of the Nikon
> 8000 was better, and the workflow way easier. If/when the Nikon 8000
> scanner crashes, it would be very nice if a DSLR could be used, but I'd be
> surprised if even at 36 mp they are up to the quality of the dedicated film
> scanner.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: "Mark Savoia
> But there is no Digital-Ice in a camera. If you got old dirty slides or 
> negs, you have lots of work to do after you shoot.

Most of mine are old Kodachromes, and digital ice doesn't work with them, so 
no difference.

Bob Frost

An here's the result using a $25 4x microscope objective:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/sc_100.jpg

Here's the whole 6x7 negative:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Cezanne_whole.jpg

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Bob Frost <bobfrost@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: "Mark Savoia
>
> > But there is no Digital-Ice in a camera. If you got old dirty slides or
> > negs, you have lots of work to do after you shoot.
>
> Most of mine are old Kodachromes, and digital ice doesn't work with them,
> so
> no difference.
>
> Bob Frost
>
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When I was doing my internegatives, I found the MTF to be a huge problem.  Even the best -- see the Apo-Rodagon D at the bottom of http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf -- has a fair loss.  At 1:1 your f8 diffraction limit is like f16.  So, you want to use these fairly wide open.  Then, particularly with a stepper setup, you'd be fighting light falloff.

The stepper idea is interesting, but I'd think you'd want a telephoto optic.  Looks like lots of work.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The highest quality lenses at 1:1 that I've seen tests for are Printing
Nikkors, but they're very expensive.  The 1x Rodagon D does very well, but
the cheap 55mm Nikkor does a very good job.  My only lens that's clearly
better is a Mitutoyo APO 2x.

Even manually tiling 6x7 negatives is very easy with a jig.  It only takes
me about 2 minutes, and then there's a little time in software.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> When I was doing my internegatives, I found the MTF to be a huge problem.
> Even the best -- see the Apo-Rodagon D at the bottom of
> http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf-- has a fair loss. At 1:1 your f8 diffraction limit is like f16. So, you
> want to use these fairly wide open. Then, particularly with a stepper
> setup, you'd be fighting light falloff.
>
> The stepper idea is interesting, but I'd think you'd want a telephoto
> optic. Looks like lots of work.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Providing the lighting is even between each batch of images you can deal with lighting falloff with software such as Equalight from RMI.  You just need to have a clear image to use as the control in the software.
 
David Whistance
 

________________________________

 From: Paul <roark.paul@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, 20 July 2012, 18:00
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Pacific Image Scanners
  

 
   
 
When I was doing my internegatives, I found the MTF to be a huge problem.  Even the best -- see the Apo-Rodagon D at the bottom of http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf -- has a fair loss.  At 1:1 your f8 diffraction limit is like f16.  So, you want to use these fairly wide open.  Then, particularly with a stepper setup, you'd be fighting light falloff.

The stepper idea is interesting, but I'd think you'd want a telephoto optic.  Looks like lots of work.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

   
      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>... you can deal with lighting falloff with software such as Equalight from RMI.  

I was also thinking of CornerFix -- http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/cornerfix_15.html

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Yes, you can deal with lighting irregularities with software, but it's not
that hard to build an even source.  My design is similar to a De Vere 504
light mixing box, and it works with either flash (SB-28) or an LED light
source.  It has less than 1% variation in light intensity.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> >... you can deal with lighting falloff� with software such as Equalight
> from RMI.�
>
> I was also thinking of CornerFix --
> http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/cornerfix_15.html
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark,

The Logan light pads are incredibly even. I can't see any hot spots in my transparencies or B&W negatives. The temperature looks good too. I do not have any color casts. 

Tim
PghArtist.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:

>
> How even is the light from those Logans, any hot spots?
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Tim wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > ASMP did a copy stand project for the Library of Congress that might be of interest. 
> > 
> > http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning
> > 
> > I purchased an inexpensive copy stand from Amazon and a beautiful LED "light pad" from BH Photo that works very well for my MF, 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies and negatives. 
> > 
> > I doubt that I will scan ever again. However, I will probably send out for drum scans if I need to make large prints above 30 x 40 or so.
> > 
> > Logan 4x5 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/179861-REG/Logan_Electric_750219_4_x_5_Slim.html
> > 
> > Logan 8x10 Light Pad: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/127288-REG/Logan_Electric_750181_8_x_10_Slim_Edge.html
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Tim
> >
>

Jimbo and Mark, I have certainly done it both ways and I base my decision on
needed end result. If I know it's going to be going big and needs all the
sharpness it has to offer, I don't use ICE. It also is based on other
shooting ideas, is it a portrait, landscape, etc. ICE will most certainly
require a stronger dose of sharpening later. I have been toying with
converting from my Nikon 9000 to a 800E. 
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
Let's Talk Photography
 
  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Savoia
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 8:00 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Pacific Image Scanners
 
  
True it does lose a bit of sharpness but I would rather spend 10 seconds
applying sharpening then 60 minutes retouching out scratches. But that is
just me, we scan many old slides from clients who stored them in basements,
attics, back seat of car, in underwear drawer (you get the point).

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:49 AM, jimbo wrote:

> Mark,
> Ice is handy that's for sure but using it actually takes the overall scan
quality backwards.. If you scan a slide with it turned off an dthen again
turned on it's visible ..But yes less work..
> 
> jimbo



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]