Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hmmm, sounds like Nikon has discontinued manufacturing of the scanners and just hasn't told anyone till stocks get a little bit smaller. Same issue as the F3 that Nikon claimed to be manufacturing even into the F5 era due to demand, but at 2/3 the price of an F5 without motor and plentiful supplies of used to be had. So, if anyone needs a scanner now would be a great time to acquire one. Maybe Leica should start making one now that they are almost obsolete. :) Don don.dory@gmail.com On 5/28/06, G Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > Thanks Don and Tina for comments on longevity & scanning issues with the > Kodachrome. > > I think that makes an executive summary of: > The original slide is likely very close to it initial colour, so the > Restoration of Colour component of the ICE3 software is actually > oversaturating the image. > Dust & scratch removal MAY not work with K64 > > Out of general interest, no K64 sold in Australia for some time now, I > regard that as one of those historical significant photographic milestones > that make me sad. There are many more > > Almost impossible to purchase the Nikon scanners anywhere here now either. > I > bought my Coolscan V after speaking to six dealers and the Nikon > distributor > to try to buy the 5000. Same story of months of backorders everywhere. > > > > > Steve, > I found a German slide show on color loss and color restoration. > Specifically for Kodachorme at Arizona temperature you would lose about > half > the life of the slide assuming humidity at 80%. Color loss was pretty > linear with a small cyan crossover so reds would increase somewhat. In a > practical sense you would lose saturation. A key point though is humidity > is a necessary catalyst up to a point. > > In summary, if your slides were taken on old Koadachrome stock they should > look unchanged for about 35-40 years in un-air conditioned space assuming > old Arizona climate before everybody watered the lawn and put in swimming > pools. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > > >Anyway I was surprised to see that the ICE3 Nikon Scan software would > work > >at all on Kodachrome. > > > >Perhaps only the dust reduction doesn't work on K & B&W emulsions. > > > >Hoppy, > > Hoppy - I'm using the Nikon LS5000 to scan Kodachromes, some very > old and some not so old. The ICE will work with some Kodachromes but > not with others. If you look at the emulsion side of the slide and > can see raised areas, like bas-relief, ICE will probably not > work. It sees the silver content of the Kodachrome as dirt and tries > to remove it. The same with B&W negatives. I usually do not use ICE > for Kodachromes and B&W negatives because I'm usually batch scanning > and don't want to find out later that it didn't work. For those > slides and negatives, I use Polaroid's Dust and Scratch Remover which > works as a Filter under PSCS2. It does a remarkably good job and you > can fade it if it gets too aggressive. > > Hope this helps, > > Tina > > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/dimes_for_hunger > > > > > > Regarding the lens resolution, digital image resolution v inkjet > resolution, > they are not at all comparable. > > Lens resolution expressed as line pairs per millimetre is quite different > from the 300 Pixels per inch (for example) that you might save your > digital > file as to print from (whether sourced from a DSLR or scanned from film). > > Then the quoted figures for output from an inkjet might sound much higher. > My Epson, for example can lay down ink dots at up to 5760 Dots per inch in > one direction and 1440 in the other. But those dots are up to eight ink > colours, OVERLAID many times, different sizes and densities. All of those > dots represent the colours and simulate the continuous tone appearance. > > The links that Tina provided are excellent reading and you may also like > to > visit Erwin Puts for a wealth of Leica info plus the lens resolution > subject. > http://www.imx.nl/ > > > Cheers > Hoppy > Google is your friend > > Message: 23 > Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:58:42 -0400 > From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Clarification of "Lens Quality . . . " > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060528151650.022b1058@infoave.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii > > At 01:52 AM 5/28/2006, you wrote: > >1. The reason I might use a loupe is that I have a print and I want > >to read some detail in that print. So the question becomes how much > >detail is available before it turns into grain or dots. Surely it > >matters about the enlarger, etc, vs. merely printing a digital file, > >and surely it matters how many dpi are put out by the inkjet printer > >(and the resolution of that system... If you paper resolves 25lp/mm, > >that is 600+ lp/inch, I am not sure what 1400dpi means in terms of > resolution). > > > This article explains resolution and sharpness and what we can and can't > see: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml > > Here is an interesting article comparing 35mm digital to medium format > film: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml > And it was written in 2003. Enormous strides have been made in > digital since then. > > A more recent comparison between 4x5 film and digital backs: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml > > Tina > > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/dimes_for_hunger > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >