Coolscan 8000, more questions.

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Dan Ciccone" wrote in message
news:C6EQb.142837$xy6.630814@attbi_s02...
I have also been very satisfied with the scanner. Except for one
small
issue. When using the 120 film holder and cannot manage to get the film
lined
up correctly. Consequently I end up with overlap from the prevoiuse
picture,
this is of course using negative film strips of three. Has anyone else
experienced this? if so some input would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I find that the automagic function that
identifies where frames are for the thumbnail view is usually a bit off and
needs to be adjusted.

Every time, and it is so bloody annoying. If they'd only made the
scanner so that it could scan a couple of millimetres either side
there would be no problem.

Andrew.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:55:53 -0000, lid
wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Dan Ciccone" wrote in message
news:C6EQb.142837$xy6.630814@attbi_s02...
I have also been very satisfied with the scanner. Except for one
small
issue. When using the 120 film holder and cannot manage to get the film
lined
up correctly. Consequently I end up with overlap from the prevoiuse
picture,
this is of course using negative film strips of three. Has anyone else
experienced this? if so some input would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I find that the automagic function that
identifies where frames are for the thumbnail view is usually a bit off and
needs to be adjusted.

Every time, and it is so bloody annoying. If they'd only made the
scanner so that it could scan a couple of millimetres either side
there would be no problem.



Better yet, scan the whole bloody strip and
let the user draw an outline of the image area
to be scanned. Sheesh.

How stupid to let the software decide (and
wrongly most of the time) and then have the
user apply a "correction" to the software's
off-the-wall guess.

Still though, it makes awesome scans. This
is but an annoyance.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:55:53 -0000, lid
wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:

I find that the automagic function that identifies where frames
are for the thumbnail view is usually a bit off and needs to be
adjusted.

Every time, and it is so bloody annoying. If they'd only made the
scanner so that it could scan a couple of millimetres either side
there would be no problem.

Better yet, scan the whole bloody strip and let the user draw an
outline of the image area to be scanned. Sheesh.

I don't think the hardware can do that: the micro-stepping motor can
only cover a 6x9 frame.

How stupid to let the software decide (and wrongly most of the time)
and then have the user apply a "correction" to the software's
off-the-wall guess.

Still though, it makes awesome scans. This is but an annoyance.

Yes, but it messes up your workflow. The scanner would be
considerably faster to use if you didn't have to make this correction
every time.

Andrew.