newbie needs some help

[chris_burck1]

<p>i'm about to develop some b&w negatives for the first time, and am working at getting my microtek s400 configured to my g4 tower running 10.3.9. I'll be installing the microtek scanwizard for now, but upgrading to a better software (maybe scanner, too, eventually) is an option i'm keeping open.</p>

<p>this scanner came with a device for scanning 35mm negs. we'll see how well it actually works. my main question is whether scanning larger negs is possible (namely, 6x6 and 6x9) if, say, i rig a holder out of a lightbox or something. if not, what is the limiting factor? is it the software? or is the scanner itself inherently limited in some way?</p>

<p>Next, Silverfast seems far and away to be the preferred 3rd party software. Is the demo version sufficient to get a sense of just how good it is? whether it will be worth the investment?</p>

<p>all comments appreciated.</p>

[colin_mattson1]

<p>Download the demo of Silverfast and give it a shot using a larger light source—it may be that the scanner physically won't scan outside of that area with the transparency adapter connected.<br>

Hopefully the cord on the transparency adapter is long enough you can stick it somewhere off the scanner while you're trying the MacGuyver method.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>"Next, Silverfast seems far and away to be the preferred 3rd party software."</p>

<p>Not so sure about that. Vuescan is a lot cheaper and seems to work well for a lot of people.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hamrick.com/">http://www.hamrick.com/</a></p>

[tibz]

<p>I don't like vuescan at all. In fact I hate it. Silverfast works very well IMHO.</p>

<p>Typically you have some sort of illuminator behind the bed on the opposite side of the CCD. The light shines through the film to the CCD. That is usually the limiting factor. I suppose you may be able to scan larger with some DIY jurry rigging.</p>

<p>Your film format, 35mm, is dreadfully small to be scanning with some flatbed scanner with quite low resolution. I would recommend using a larger format.</p>

[chris_burck1]

<p><strong>Colin</strong> , Great minds think alike? :) Already downloaded the silverfast se demo. They seem to have demos for all the variants, but i figured i'd start with the most basic since i'm a total newbie to scanning.<br>

Good point about the transparency adapter. Sort of a moot point right now, though, because the transparency adapter seems to be on the fritz. Either the serial connector is faulty, so it's not supplying any current to the adapter, or the bulb in the adapter is dead. Will have to investigate that.<br>

Maybe some experimentation is in order. It'll be interesting to see whether using something like silverfast will enable scanning larger negs. That would really be the bomb. I'm kind of pessimistic about it (improvising an adapter for larger formats) right now, though. The negative strip i scanned with the non-working adapter just came out black. And considering that the light element in the adapter looks like some sort of quartz or halogen technology, i'm wondering how bright of a backlight does the scanner need?</p>

[chris_burck1]

<p><strong>Dave</strong> - You're right, vuescan is an alternative which i shouldn't discount, esp. if it's cheaper (the green monster is a decisive consideration here). Searches tend to return far more hits for silverfast than vuescan, though. Like, lots lots more.<br>

I'm on dialup with limited time, so i may not have explored far enough, but what i have found so far doesn't give me much basis on which to better understand/compare what these packages have to offer. Is it just the interface, as in intuitiveness/ease of use? The range or scope of controls? Does it actually affect how well the machine does its work, or interpret the output better than the native software?<br>

I'm really clueless about this, as i'm sure is evident by now. No doubt, if there's a demo available for vuescan the best thing is to download it and see what it does, but i'd really appreciate more input as well. It would help immensely.</p>

[chris_burck1]

<p><strong>Nicolas</strong> - Unfortunately my budget doesn't allow for that. The only reason i have even this scanner is that i got it for $10 new in the box. Well, now i know why, seeing how the adapter is faulty. Still, can't give up on it yet. The box says resolution is 4800x9600. What it's true resolution is i have no idea. . . .</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Hi Chris,</p>

<p>I've used Vuescan for years and like it just fine. I also have NikonScan, which works too, but the user interface hasn't changed in years and is a bit clunky. I tried the demo of Silverfast a few years ago and it seemed versatile, but my results were no better than from Vuescan. More experience with Silverfast may have changed my mind, or not.</p>

<p>I like Vuescan because:</p>

<p> - it's a lot cheaper than Silverfast, especially since I bought the Pro version years ago and upgrades are free for life, and upgrades come out several times a month.</p>

<p>- it runs on every scanner I have and every scanner I can think of buying for the same price. I use it on my Nikon film scanner and my HP flatbed, and used it on previous film scanners and flatbeds. (You have to buy a fresh version of Silverfast for each scanner at a cost of several hundred dollars.)</p>

<p>- the interface is pretty good, but there are lots of controls to figure out. (That's good, I guess.)</p>

<p>- you can save the raw scanner output to disk and then work with it from there instead of having to re-scan the source to make changes. NikonScan won't do that and I don't know if Silverfast will.</p>

<p>- finally, the author, Ed Hamrick, is great to work with. Several times I have emailed him with a problem and the fix is available on his website as an upgrade the very next day. Impressive service.</p>

<p>That's enough for now. And understand that you won't get good results right away. Learning to scan well takes time and study -- just like photography.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dave </p>