Medium format slides and the Epson V750

"Greg "_"" wrote:
"nathantw" wrote:

Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native
6400 resolution.

Unfortunately I saved it after converting it to 600dpi. I don't have
the 6400dpi version anymore and the slide was thrown back into the
pile. I'll try another slide later this weekend.

That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.

What I'd also like to see is 6400 downsampled to 2400 ppi. If you downsample
Nikon 8000 scans to 2400 ppi, the look _gorgeous_ and support an 8x
enlargement quite reasonably. The nice thing about 6400 is that you can
noise reduce at that resolution without losing the detail at 2400 ppi.

Of course, the last time I hit a 4000 ppi scan of 645 with NeatImage, it
took half an hour. Since then, NeatImage claims to have gotten twice as
fast, and my PC has gotten twice as fast as well.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.

There is a significant improvement compared to the 2450. Still not quite as
sharp as a dedicated 35 mm film scanner, but much closer.

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners

In article .com,
"nathantw" wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:
That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.

Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may
have it.

I think Architecture is best, will show a sharp edge if it can begotten
with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything
like that on 100 speed film all the better.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Greg "_"" wrote:
"nathantw" wrote:

Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native
6400 resolution.

Unfortunately I saved it after converting it to 600dpi. I don't have
the 6400dpi version anymore and the slide was thrown back into the
pile. I'll try another slide later this weekend.

That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.

What I'd also like to see is 6400 downsampled to 2400 ppi. If you downsample
Nikon 8000 scans to 2400 ppi, the look _gorgeous_ and support an 8x
enlargement quite reasonably. The nice thing about 6400 is that you can
noise reduce at that resolution without losing the detail at 2400 ppi.

Of course, the last time I hit a 4000 ppi scan of 645 with NeatImage, it
took half an hour. Since then, NeatImage claims to have gotten twice as
fast, and my PC has gotten twice as fast as well.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to
replace the 9000. What do you think?
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"Greg "_"" wrote:

I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to
replace the 9000. What do you think?

I think it's unlikely. But then I think the 8000 and 9000 themselves are
unlikely (since Nikon doesn't make any MF cameras).

If they do, I'd like it to be 4800 ppi with an anti-aliasing filter on the
CCD (so negative scans don't look so ugly), a light source three times as
bright and a lens one f stop slower (for better DOF).

Now that would be one nice scanner; you'd scan at 4800 ppi, noise reduce,
and downsample to 2400 ppi and make _killer_ 8x enlargements. Maybe even
downsampling to 2700 ppi for 9x enlargements with TMX100 or Pro160S.

I don't think we'll get any of the above, though.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

nathantw wrote:
Scott W wrote:
You can post it like this, first the full view scaled way down in size
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799816/original

Scott,
What did you use to scan your photos? They look a lot sharper than
mine.

Sorry I should have said, mine is digital. Stitched for a rather
larger number of
photos

I figured it would be about the same size are yours give or take some.
I think showing the whole photo and then crops is is great way to give
a feel
for the detail in a photo.

Scott

The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008
with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E.

The scan was done at 6400dpi with a USM of 170% at 1.9 radius. I didn't get
rid of the dust or anything. I dropped the resolution to 300dpi. 2400dpi is
just too big of a file to upload to the free upload website.

full building
http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/385...9765625_rs.jpg

zoomed 100%
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/...1539155_rs.jpg


"Greg "_"" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"nathantw" wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:
That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for
35mm
compared to my older 2450.

Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may
have it.

I think Architecture is best, will show a sharp edge if it can begotten
with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything
like that on 100 speed film all the better.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Noise Ninja would help your scans.

regards,

nathantw wrote:
The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008
with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E.

The scan was done at 6400dpi with a USM of 170% at 1.9 radius. I didn't get
rid of the dust or anything. I dropped the resolution to 300dpi. 2400dpi is
just too big of a file to upload to the free upload website.

full building
http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/385...9765625_rs.jpg

zoomed 100%
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/...1539155_rs.jpg


"Greg "_"" wrote in message
...

In article .com,
"nathantw" wrote:


Greg "_" wrote:

That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for
35mm
compared to my older 2450.

Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may
have it.

I think Architecture is best, will show a sharp edge if it can begotten
with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything
like that on 100 speed film all the better.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"degrub" wrote in message
t...
Noise Ninja would help your scans.

'Noise Ninja' or 'Neat Image' should be in everybody's toolkit,
especially when scanning film.

Here is an example from an earlier version of Neat Image:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-2.htm
Current versions are even better and much faster.

Noise reduction even makes a lot of sense when down-sampling, because
it will avoid noise- and grain-aliasing.

For the best quality scans, scan at the scanner's native resolution,
reduce noise/graininess, and use proper (!) down-sampling (if the
resolution isn't there or you need a smaller version).

--
Bart

Nathan:
Regarding using Costco:

Costco online allows you to see which printers they use at various
locations and also to download free profiles from drycreekphoto.com. I
don't enjoy at all the time on my computer...I would MUCH rather be out
pestering folks with my camera, but even I can see the advantage to
this process. One of the adjustments is to simulate the finished print
on the type of paper chosen. This lets me re adjust (often contrast)
to get closer my desired results...and at $3.00 a print for 12 x 18 I
wish I had this last year when I was spending thousands on my printers.


nathantw wrote:
See my most recent post in that I now agree that it's sharper. I agree that
my printer may be a bit long in the tooth, but it's still a dye-sub printer
and is really sharp, though I wouldn't mind getting a newer printer that
prints larger sizes. I think what my plan, though, is to just put the files
onto a memory card and bring it to photo lab to get a Lightjet or even
Costco and have them print them out. That way I can use my dye-sub for
"proofing."

I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something
new.
I just output a 6x8 image grey scale on my new R1800 and it holds much
of what was intended. That is: I was scanned a 4x5 on a much older 2450
Epson. I would be interested in this comparision if your up for
it,....I'll scan and print a 6x6 then send to you the slide and you send
a print back from your printer and the file on a Cd and original slide,
back.

I might be up for your idea. Send me an email to the address listed on my
posts and we'll make arrangements.

Nathan