On 6/24/05, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you are talking about the photo-i reviews, I agree about the
> sharpness difference, although I think it will take about a 20x30 print
> to see it. As to color, how can one possibly tell? Everything in the
> review has been scanned on some sort of scanner using some sort of
> software, so what does one compare with what to decide which is more
> accurate for a scene one has never seen?
I agree about the sharpness, that's pretty fine detail but it's nice
if you can bring out all the detail that's in the image. One thought
ocurred to me though that the photo-i review scanned everything at
4000dpi, which is the max resolution for the Nikon 4000. However, the
9950F will go up to 4800dpi. How much extra detail you'd get is
debatable but it's possible that 4000dpi isn't a "native" resolution
for the 9950F and so the sharpness might be suffering because of that.
I would've liked to have seen at least 1 sample of a scan done at
4800dpi and then resampled to 4000dpi to test if this was the case.
As for the colour, I'm assuming that the reference image at the top of
the page has been adjusted to reflect how the image looks on a slide.
While my monitor might then display that image differently all the
images would be "out" by the same amount so relative comparisons can
still be made. As well, the reviewer comments about the colour as
well. I'm not as concerned with that though as I always scan in higher
bit-depth so that I have the leeway to adjust the colour to be
accurate. It could also be a software or profile issue.
> I really think the scanner has much less to so with the color balance of
> the output than does the software. When I got an FS2710, I didn't like
> the Canon software, either for functionality or for color results. I've
> been using VueScan for years. What I have found is that icc film
> profiles make a HUGE difference. I know one can't make them for lots of
> old films, but I'm making them for current films as I use them. They
> still are useful for older, but similar version of current films. Here's
> some shots as scanned with and without an icc profile
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/VuesProf/>.
My former scanner was an FS2710 as well. I tried the demo of Vuescan
and with one test I was convined that I had to buy the full version.
I've heard of some issues with Vuescan and the 9950F so I'm a little
put off by that but I'm running a mac and the issues I've heard of
were on PC's so that may or may not affect me.
I'm curious as to what the process is for creating icc profiles for
different films? I'm guessing that shooting a colour target is
involved? Could you supply details? I think this was a feature that's
been added in more recent versions of vuescan as when I started with
it there was only a very limited selection of film profiles, which
weren't icc profiles.
> So why don't you just buy one, do all the testing and pass the results
> on to us? :-)
I may have to go that route. Obviously I can't go for the scanner
comparisons that I'm asking for because then I'd have to own them all
and that defeats the purpose of wanting to know which one to get. So
if I do get one I could only compare it with the FS2710 and that would
be on different systems with different monitors so not really a valid
test. So I suspect any review I'd do would simply be along the
"pleased" or "displeased" line.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|