![]() ![]() I am wondering for a while already if it would work doing an IR channel when photographing the negative with a regular camera. It also avoids the slight softening of the image from IR cleaning and issues that IR causes on fine detail such as faces.ĭo you mean the vuescan implementation? Because if you are saving the IR channel, you can use a much better algorithm than what vuescan provides. Results can be great anyway, but or me personally, it does not feel right for 35 mm, but feels reasonable for pocketfilm and medium/large format. Big drawback is missing infrared scanning, and extreme dependency on the light source (here on it was discussed that less-white spectrum (more separated RGB colours) may give better results), lens, camera, etc. Digitizing with a camera and a light source is the final option that comes to my mind.I am not sure about software choices here. Due to special optics, they approach drum scan quality without wet mounting, with reduced impact of dust, but they offer no infrared scanning. Hasselblad’s flextight scanners are another pricey option.Resulutions and dynamic range are insane, as the cost. Typically, the film is wet mounted, which reduces the impact of scratches a bit (but I personally think infrared scanning and automated inpainting gives even better results and more control). Drum scans are another option, but the hardware is extremely pricey and also requires special software.The Pacon f-135 (plus) is a very special device as it “only” scans uncut 35 mm film, it’s typically Expect > $1000 for a 35 mm scanner (coolscan V, coolscan 5000), and $2500 to $5000 for a medium format scanner (coolscan 9000). The best quality you may get with one of the coolscan scanners from Nikon, however, only the latest generations have USB and these are extremely pricey as they are no longer built for a while already.Post-pandemic, I really want to ask them about a comparison session, scanning the same negatives and compare the results. These have a reasonable price and are looking very interesting. I don’t exactly know about the plustek brand, but I know some people here have such a device.I think the same as above holds for these. There are a bit pricier options from the same manufacturers for special purposes, such as automatic slide magazine scanners.The results are great compared to flatbed scans, but of course there are pricier options that deliver more quality. Depending on the actual model, you are a bit limited by the features (no autofocus/focus setting, no multi pass with different brightness, manual film transport, etc.), but the most important features are available and functional (e.g. the one I use, crystalscan 7200) are in the range between $200 and $500 and they are doing the job. Cheaper film scanners such as some from reflecta/pacific image (e.g.But for optimal results, it may be necessary to add special film adapters that raise the film to the ideal focal plane of the scanner, and you can also read stories about wet mounting. However, I am talking about scanners such as the Epson v850 pro, or other scanners in the > $500 range. Also, they can include framing/sprocket holes, which may be a reason going this route. Upper class flat-bed scanners are reasonable for medium or large format scans, if you don’t want to get the entire resolution of the film.I used such a ~ $50 device to get an initial overview before doing “real” scans, but only because I got it used from an uncle. Stay away from cheapish film “scanners” that are using a bad camera for digitizing.Hm, this is a huge topic … My thoughts are: So, do you have advice for a good 35 mm Scanner with vuescan? For now I am using all sorts of workarounds to deal with the huge amount of data in a sensible way. However, I hope that one day I will be able to do even the scratch removal in darktable. My father in law has probably 50000 slides (a rough guess, but it’s a huge cabinet full of magazines) …Īs all of my pictures are color, I need to store each image twice, as I need the scratch-removed negative to be fed into darktable. That’s something one might easily handle, but even then, if there is no benefit of higher resolution it might make sense to not use additional space. I have about 1500 negatives and 500 slides, which would make a difference of 200 GB. Depending on how many of these files you have to handle, the additional 100 MB compared to my 18 MP files will easily require additional hard disks. Processing power is one thing, and storage another. Yes, I do need to replace my X240 by a new laptop, and.I have no problems with my scans at 5000 ppi which are 260 MByte / image. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |