Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Slide Scanner vs Slide Duplicator
From: hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)
Date: Sun Nov 11 00:20:48 2007
References: <200711110317.AFS98831@rg4.comporium.net> <200711110616.lAB6GRpT067960@dragonsgate2.imagecraft.com>

Tina probably very difficult to compare meaningfully based on the small 
jpegs.
FWIW to my eye on this calibrated 24" Dell display, as shown the scan is 
appreciably sharper. Probably nothing that appropriate
sharpening wouldn't match up. The duplicator shot appears to have more 
natural colour, however that is largely meaningless too since
either might be adjusted to approximate the colour of the other. In the lo 
res versions I cannot detect any significant grain nor
artefacts from the process in either.
I think you have a viable alternative there for web reproduction.  Have you 
tried the GEM and ROC functions in the Nikon software?
You can still select these functions in post processing with Digital ICE 
deselected. Really you need some side by side prints for a
comparison for anything reproducible. I am happy to look at any higher res 
versions for another viewpoint if you are interested.

Cheers
Hoppy

-----Original Message-----
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Slide Scanner vs Slide Duplicator

At 07:18 PM 11/10/2007, Tina Manley wrote:
>PESO:
>
>I've been experimenting with using a Beseler Slide Duplicator and 
>the Canon 5D instead of a Nikon LS5000 Slide Scanner for both B&W 
>and Kodachrome slides.  I still prefer the scanner for other films 
>but for grainy, contrasty films that you can't use Digital ICE with, 
>the slide duplicator seems to do a better job.  I know you can't 
>really tell anything from a web-sized photo (at least I can't!)  but 
>here are the comparisons for one photo:
>
>Scanner:  http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/88718456
>
>Duplicator:  http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/88746181
>
>I can tell a big difference in the full-sized tiffs.  They are both 
>sharper and less contrasty - which is something I haven't been able 
>to achieve with the scanned slides.

But which one looks closer to the original? Kodachrome is notoriously 
difficult to scan.


// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, 
please use richard at imagecraft.com) 


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Slide Scanner vs Slide Duplicator)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] Slide Scanner vs Slide Duplicator)