I am using a Minolta Multi II with a slide feeder; Vuescan for half format, and
the Minolta
software for 35mm and MF. Due to the feeder, for 35mm and half format I do
autofocus on
a given point in the picture. I scan to full resolution, and then post-process
in NeatImage/PSP for printing, and down-sample for the web. Maybe I should scan
separately
for web publication ? I have been playing with the idea of buying a flat-bed
scanner,
but couldn't really convince myself (and my better half ...) yet.
Thanks,
Roland.
--- Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Der Eiserne Reiter wrote:
>
> >The slide was better than the scan, I am using NeatImage in batch mode in
> >between scanning
> >and PSP, which I should have skipped for the Heron.
> >
> I've tried NeatImage and don't think it adds anything to images for the
> web, where sizes are too small to show grain in all be very close crops.
>
> > I am still refining my flow,
> >and getting the same focus as on the originals seems to be the biggest
> >problem
> >with my setup. The easiest slides to focus are the MF ones, but this is
> >because the film
> >is put in between glass plates ...
> >
> >
> What scanner are you using? Tests have shown that some flatbeds focus
> best somewhat above the glass and folks are doing individual tests and
> shimming up their film holders.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
=====
FeRider (R.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|