Digital BW, The Print

I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine scan could be, 
I tried a 16x. I watched the progress window for a while then packed a bunch 
of equipment for a location shoot, watched a little longer then went home and 
had lunch, came back and watched some more, sent a few faxes and did 
some housekeeping. Then I watched some more. The scan was excellent. So 
was the one I got from 4x in a fraction of the time. What settings do you use for 
optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion) results. End use is best print I can 
make. 

Mike

hi there, mike.  i have a 9000 rather than an 8000, but the 
principle is the same.  i sometimes use no multi-sampling, 4x 
and, rarely, 16x.  i often use the superfine setting because early 
on i began to believe that doing so gave a result with less 
haloing.  (i may be wrong there... :-)   at any rate, with digital ice 
on fine, superfine scan mode and 16x multi-sampling, on a 6x6 
negative at 16bit grayscale, i don't recall a scan ever taking more 
than 40 minutes.  however, i do no adjustments, grain reduction, 
or any other kind of processing during the scanning process.

ed

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mkitei" 
<mkitei@b...> wrote:
> I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine 
scan could be, 
> I tried a 16x. I watched the progress window for a while then 
packed a bunch 
> of equipment for a location shoot, watched a little longer then 
went home and 
> had lunch, came back and watched some more, sent a few 
faxes and did 
> some housekeeping. Then I watched some more. The scan 
was excellent. So 
> was the one I got from 4x in a fraction of the time. What settings 
do you use for 
> optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion) results. End use is best 
print I can 

> make. 
> 
> Mike

hi there, mike.  i have a 9000 rather than an 8000, but the 
principle is the same.  i sometimes use no multi-sampling, 4x 
and, rarely, 16x.  i often use the superfine setting because early 
on i began to believe that doing so gave a result with less 
haloing.  (i may be wrong there... :-)   at any rate, with digital ice 
on fine, superfine scan mode and 16x multi-sampling, on a 6x6 
negative at 16bit grayscale, i don't recall a scan ever taking more 
than 40 minutes.  however, i do no adjustments, grain reduction, 
or any other kind of processing during the scanning process.

ed

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mkitei" 
<mkitei@b...> wrote:
> I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine 
scan could be, 
> I tried a 16x. I watched the progress window for a while then 
packed a bunch 
> of equipment for a location shoot, watched a little longer then 
went home and 
> had lunch, came back and watched some more, sent a few 
faxes and did 
> some housekeeping. Then I watched some more. The scan 
was excellent. So 
> was the one I got from 4x in a fraction of the time. What settings 
do you use for 
> optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion) results. End use is best 
print I can 

> make. 
> 
> Mike

Hi Mike,

I use superfine and 8x and 14bit.  Takes about 1/2 hour for a 6x7 transparency.  
Superstition is my only excuse.  Cheers,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine scan could be, 
> I tried a 16x. I watched the progress window for a while then packed a bunch 
> of equipment for a location shoot, watched a little longer then went home and 
> had lunch, came back and watched some more, sent a few faxes and did 
> some housekeeping. Then I watched some more. The scan was excellent. So 
> was the one I got from 4x in a fraction of the time. What settings do you use for 
> optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion) results. End use is best print I can 
> make. 
> 
> Mike

mkitei writes:

> I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine scan could be,
> I tried a 16x.

Superfine scans simply use a single line of the three-line CCD.  It
prevents banding in high-contrast scans, but it takes three times as
long as a regular scan.  Nikon should have called "superfine" scans
"regular" scans and "normal" scans "high-speed" scans.

The 16x is overkill in just about every conceivable case.

> What settings do you use for optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion)
> results.

In almost all cases, I leave superfine scanning off, and I use 2x
sampling at most. Digital ICE is on for color or chromogenic (C-41) B&W,
off for true black and white; I never use anything but the lowest
setting.  GEM is never on.

For some slides, especially Velvia slides of contrasty subjects and
night shots, I use the superfine mode to avoid any visible banding.  In
most other scans, the normal mode is fine.  Banding is occasionally
visible in high-contrast true B&W scans; it's rare (I don't recall ever
seeing it) in any kind of C-41 negative scan, since the contrast of
color negatives is so low to begin with.

mkitei wrote:

> I just got an 8000, and wanting to see just how fine a superfine scan could be, 
> I tried a 16x. I watched the progress window for a while then packed a bunch 
> of equipment for a location shoot, watched a little longer then went home and 
> had lunch, came back and watched some more, sent a few faxes and did 
> some housekeeping. Then I watched some more. The scan was excellent. So 
> was the one I got from 4x in a fraction of the time. What settings do you use for 
> optimum ( a time vs. quality equasion) results. End use is best print I can 
> make. 
> 
> Mike

Color negatives 2x to 4x sampling with the normal scan of 
NikonScan. ICE included. But most of the time I use Vuescan with 
the same settings and that means superfine scan by default.

For slides and B&W negatives with Vuescan: 2x sampling + long 
exposure (which uses a different 2x sampling). That gives more 
shadow detail.  Vuescan uses superfine only.

MF wetmounted, 35 mm usually not.

Ernst