Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3787

Subject: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3787
From: Stephen Scharf <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:51:39 -0800
<SNIP>

Perhaps the missing logical step is to note that at current price levels, the cheaper route to digital is to use a 35mm film camera and scan the negatives.

Joe Gwinn

Agreed, but the postprocessing time is still considerably greater than shooting with digital. Digital cameras are great that way. I would wager Olympus feels the same way; they think of themselves now more as digital camera company than they do as a film camera company.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:13:38 -0500
From: William Clark <wclark@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs  in

I would disagree with scanning negatives.  Who wants to wait and wait for 30
meg files to scan, then dust and scratch removal, then photoshop, and on we
go.  If I were to scan, I would scan slides, which the Epson 2450 does
beautifully.  You save $ and time with a film scanner.  People will use
digcams to get rid of teh intermediary scanning steps...I sure do.

- -Bill


Anyone interested in scanning slides or negs should check out the new Minolta Dimage III. This scanner has a Dmax of 4.8, 2880 res, and sells for about $315. Cheaper even than an Epson 2450. It got an amazingly positive review in Imaging-Resource.com. I have a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, which I like *very* much, so it doesn't surprise me in the least the Dimage III has gotten such a good review. Also, the guys at Keeble and Schuchat in Palo Alto love the Minolta scanners. I paid $799 for my Scan Elite II last July, and at the time, it was hands down the best scanner on the market in that price range (better than the Nikon IV ED). If I had known the Dimage III was going to come out, I would have gotten that instead. The only difference that I am aware of between the two is that the Scan Elite II has ASF's Digital ICE, ROC and GEM, and the Dimage III has some dust and scratch removal software that is Minolta's own. Given that most of my slides are in great shape, I would have opted for the Dimage III over the Scan Elite II. For the money, the Dimage III has to be the best deal in the universe for film scanning. BTW, I have scanned both slides and negs with the Scan Elite II and have had very good succcess with both. Both are still time consuming with respect to postprocessing, though, but it's nice to have for legacy photos. I recently scanned a slide that I took about 20 years ago with the OM-1 and it came out beautifully using the Scan Elite II. Those interested can see it here: http://www.pbase.com/image/10160638/original

-Stephen

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:22:39 -0500
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Really way OT Q and rant
<SNIP>

I=92ve got "Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian" on DVD, but "The Meaning
of Life" is no longer available new!  Is this some sort of
dastardly PC plot, a vast no-wing conspiracy?  Used DVDs of this
paragon of cinematic art are selling for over $100, even on the
Bay thing.  This is unconscionable!  I demand...well, I demand
that somebody do something!

Walt, I can sympathize...my family has been trying to find "The Thin Red Line" on DVD for me for as a XMAS present for two years now without success. What I don't know is if they've tried to just order from a video store.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:46:18 -0500
From: "Mickey Trageser" <vze3m2s8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs in

Bill,
In my experience, scanning negs and slides are equally arduous. What makes
the difference for you?
- -Mickey

It's just arduous, period, in my experience...reminds me of doing micromanipulation with a light microscope.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:52:58 -0500
From: William Clark <wclark@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs  in

I get better results with slides, which makes the difference for me.  If I
am going to spend time doing this stuff, then I want the best result
possible with minimal troubles.  You are right though, it is just as ardous,
but my experience is better with slides (quicker)

- -Bill

Bill, Not my experience...might be difference in the scanners.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:55:33 -0900
From: "Kenneth J. Gill" <gillfoto@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Need help on cleaning some old 35mm Negatives

Hello Zuiko Lovers,
I've been scanning some negatives, to find that if could only wash away the
tiny specks I might get a cleaner result and would not have to use
photoshop.

Does any have some guidance on available kits or solutions?
Ken


The stuff that is the best is Pec-12 and a PEC pad.


Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:33:29 -0500
From: "Jamie Costello" <jcostel1168@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Really way OT Q and rant

Isn't it "The Meaning of Life" that has the funniest scene ever committed to
celluloid: "Your mint, sir."?


IMHO, I think Laurel and Hardy were funnier compared to that.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:17:44 -0800
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Scanning slides vs. negs (was How many pixels in a 35mm film image)

A couple of years of reading this list hs convinced me that both ease of
use and quality of results in scanning film are highly variable across
hardware, software and wetware. Film scanning is not a mature consumer
technology like bicycles, automobiles, water faucets, door knobs, etc.,
where virtually anyone fimiliar with the operation of some examples can
readily use different examples with fully satisfactory results.
<snip>
It seems likely to me that all curent, major brand scanners are capable
of equal quality results from either form of film.

I completely agree, Moose.

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:37:36 -0500
From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Need help on cleaning some old 35mm Negatives
<snip>
The scans I do by hand at home are far better than the drugstore scans sold
locally under the Kodak "Picture CD" logo.  As we've discussed before,
"Picture CD" quality seems to vary all over the map.  What's available to me
is lousy for concert pictures.  Your needs and local quality will be
different.

The Picture CD scans are mediocre, the but the Photo CD ones can be quite good.

--


2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3787, Stephen Scharf <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz