Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Manual or Auto focus scan?

Subject: [OM] Re: Manual or Auto focus scan?
From: "Bolty" <boldbolty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:50:05 +1000
I agree Walt... I. tried vuescan and found it didnt help at all. Manual
focus was impossible to determine with it!. There are also some updates
available for the 5400 firmware which seem to help a little in speeding up
the scanning process!... I am also going to try a similar set up to yours
with cutting out vibration. I have noticed that when using manual focus the
reading can move around if I bump the computer desk or if I have a fan
running... So I do think using something to cut out vibration will help with
overall scans!
Cheers Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:31 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Manual or Auto focus scan?


> I am not as big a fan of Vuescan as many here, although I do use it with
the Epson Perfection 3200, which I use for 120 and 4x5 scans.  I like it
just barely enough better than Epson's software for this scanner to use it.
I tried Vuescan briefly with the Minolta 5400, but fairly soon went back to
Minolta's software, which I find more useful, particularly, as Chris pointed
out, for the manual focus feature.
>
> As far as why Minolta's autofocus doesn't work as well as the manual
focus, I can only make the wild guess that it tries to average out the
entire slide or negative, which probably isn't all that flat.  With the
manual focus, I pick a sharp-edged, high contrast area in the middle third
of the image and focus on it.  It takes only a few seconds, and it makes me
feel better.  Although I admit it has some advantages in some circumstances,
I still take a dim view of any and all forms of autofocus anything.  I think
I can always do better, and it's what I think that really matters, isn't it?
>
> I promised a few days ago to explain what I did to my Minolta 5400 that I
felt improved its performance somewhat, so here goes.  This scanner
vibrates.  Mine sits on an old, very heavy, solid oak desk, and I could feel
vibration in the desktop itself when the scanner was in use.  Being a
veteran of years in the hi-fi wars and many a vibration search and destroy
mission, I decided that the feedback from the vibrating desktop, while maybe
not particularly detrimental, sure as hell wasn't likely to be beneficial
either.
>
> A bit of digging in a box of hi-fi odds and ends turned up just what I was
looking for: a sheet of 1/4 in. thick Sorbothane.  The feet on the scanner,
fore and aft, have thin little rubber pads on them, but that solid, hard
plastic stand that sits amidscanner provides a direct mechanical connection
between the scanner case and the desktop, providing an ideal path for
vibration and vibration feedback.  So, I cut a couple of 3/4 in. x 2 in.
strips to span the front and rear feet and a 4 in. circle to stick on the
bottom of the stand.  Voila!  No more desktop vibration!
>
> Post-Sorbothane, I scanned a couple of slides I had scanned
pre-Sorbothane, and they seem just a bit sharper, with maybe a tad more
detail.  It could be argued, of course, that this might be because of
different scanner settings, or maybe that I've gotten better at focusing, or
any number of variables, imagined and otherwise.  I suppose the only way to
prove that this modification has made any real improvement would be to
remove the Sorbothane, scan a slide, carefully replace the Sorbothane while
preserving the settings, then scan the slide again, and repeat this
procedure with at least eight or ten slides.
>
> Let me say right here and now, no matter how much or how many inquiring
minds may want to know, that ain't going to be happening.  I think it made a
difference, and just like with the manual focusing, what I think is all that
counts, isn't it?
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Indeed Winsor, thanks for your reply.  It is a little strange to let
> > that sort of detail go to waste though.  And what of my question: if
> > the software can produce a little bar to tell you when you have a
> > better focus, why does the autofocus not use the same technique.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On 29 May 2004, at 13:00, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It would not be the first time that a third party wrote better
software
> > > than the manufacturer. For instance there are better printer drivers
> > > than Epson's own and even Epson's Mac versions lack capabilities of
the
> > > Windows versions sometimes for years before they reach parity.
> > >
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] Re: Manual or Auto focus scan?, Bolty <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz