Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/15

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

Subject: Re: scanning
From: Vondauster@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:09:24 -0500 (EST)

Hi All,

In a message dated 97-11-15 11:19:01 EST, Frederic wrote:

<< My question is have you had any experience with Nikon scanners? Can you
 suggest a way to get lighter scans with the Nikon software? Incidentally,
 have you tried photo cd's, I've been told they are good to 11 x 14 in final
 printed pieces if scanned properly. Can anyone recommend a good outfit on
the
 east coast that does decent kodack cd scans? >>

I have used the Coolscan II for about a year and a half now, as well as
thousands of Photo CD scans. On balance they both have produced high-quality
results, but they each have their limitations. The Coolscan is capable of
producing higher-resolution scans than a Photo CD (for ease of reference:
about 25MB at 24 bits, versus 18MB at 24 bits for the PCD). With properly
exposed slides and negatives, I have not noticed the darkness problem you
mentioned, but it is pretty sensitive to any underexposure. PCDs, on the
other hand, seem more tolerant of underexposed images, perhaps because the
Kodak scanner has a brighter or more variable light source, sometimes
yielding usable results where the Coolscan fails. The other problem with the
Coolscan is its sensitivity to ANY vibration. Even the coolong fans of
adjacent computers have resulted in "jittery" scans.

I use the 18MB images processed down to about 15 MB to print poster-sized
output on a large HP (d-sized) inkjet all the time with astonishingly good
results (especially with Leica originals!).

Good luck, and give PCDs a try. If the Coolscan continues to fail on properly
exposed images, try the same slide at a local dealer's machine and see if the
results are better. If so, the light source on your Coolscan may be
defective.

Cheers,

Will von Dauster