Interesting, Bob. Thanks for reporting back!
Interesting, Bob. Thanks for reporting back!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Peter, I'm curious, what are the differences in V2 over V1.
I'm still running 1.0 and I'm very pleased with it. Sure miss decent histograms etc though?
Bob
Working in OS10 is nice, especially since this allows me to use a USB 2 add on card. I transfer files using a small external hard drive, and when I scanned in OS9, I had to reboot to transfer files. Eventually, I'll pick up a G5 to use as my scanning computer.
There's no histogram that I'm aware of, but there is a pop-up that allows you to have readings from quite a few places on the film. (I don't remember if V1 had this.) With BW, I use eye droppers to find the darkest and lightest image areas, and perhaps a few others, and then I adjust the settings until the readouts at the places marked give values that I want. It is complicated a bit by my scanning negatives as positives, which is required to get 16 bit per channel output, but that's something that one becomes used to fairly quickly.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
V2 has no histogram (that I am aware of). In my opinion this is a big PITA, but I agree with Peter that the software does allow a great deal of control over individual channels. Its just that uncovering the information to tweak those channels is time-consuming.
I have a 35mm slide that I scanned at 5000 DPI, and in comparison to a scan from a Nikon Coolscan5000, the sky exhibits less grain. I'll rescan the slide at 4000 and 6000 soon to add one more observation.
Have any of you had banding problems with color negatives? I often, though not always, get banding (120 and 4x5), and I am trying to figure out if it is my technique, the scanner, or maybe even the film processing. The banding appears in light areas of the negative, most often as a consistent, repeated pattern (they look like roller marks). Any suggestions for ways to diagnose and treat this?
Peter Y.
Hi Peter,
I've only scanned a couple of color negatives, and I haven't noticed the problem, but they were fairly low quality negs. A while ago a scanner tech posted a series of pictures on how to clean the interior of a Cezanne. Perhaps this would help? If you have trouble finding the series of pictures, let me know, and I'll hunt them down.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thanks Peter! I have the pictures on the computer somewhere and I will clean out the scanner in the future.
Peter Y.
Have you checked that your calibration strip is spotless. If you're not aware how to do that let me know. Usually dirty calibration strip results in gross banding though.
Worth a try.
Bob
Originally Posted by Peter York
Bob's makes a good point. Be very careful with the calibration strip, though. I seem to remember seeing somewhere in the manual to never use cleaning fluids on it.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I recall examining my calibration strip when I purchased the scanner and it was a bit dingy in areas. I left it alone due to fear of damaging it. Any recommendations on how to clean this?
Peter Y.
Hello "bohngy",
I'd like to ask you some things about the Cezanne.
Might you give me your email address, please?
Thank you very much
Bye
Mark
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks