brucelin

Serge, as far as I know, there are 4 packages using the X-rite puck, Monaco Optix-XR, Monaco Optix-XR Pro, Monaco Optix-XR Easycolor, and ColorEyes Display + Optix-XR puck. The Eye-One packages DO NOT use the same Optix-XR puck, they use the Eye-One Display 2 puck which is the same one in Eye-One Display LT. But it is defintely not the same one used in those packages from X-Rite. I guess technically, since X-Rite merged with Gretag Macbeth, you can call everything X-Rite pucks.

err... hardwares are definitely NOT the same between these two packages. Pantone Eye-One Display 2 is basically a repackage of Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display 2 calibrator + Eye-One Match 3 software. Spyder2PRO uses Colorvision Spyder calibrator + Colorvision software. Eye-One Display 2 along with the Monaco Optix-XR Pro seem to be the more highly rated choices. You can check out www.drycreekphoto.com for reviews.

Hi Rodney,

 

Thanks for the quick reply, I'll try that when I get home later today. But regarding the questions I have, do you recommend using native white point and native gamma still if my lcd allows adjusting RGB individually or should I use the standard 6500k and 2.2? Second, is it going to be a problem for leaving my LCD with a luminance of 160 instead of the suggested 120? Does that mean all my prints will come out on the dark side?

Hi Rodney,

 

I just got my eye-one display 2 yesterday. I'm using it on my Dell 2405fpw monitor. I tried your suggestions and created a profile using the native white point and native gamma of my monitor, then I created another profile using the standard white point of 6500k and gamma of 2.2. I have to say that the two profiles look quite different! The profile with 6500k and 2.2 look on the warmer side. Which profile should I go with in this case? On my Dell 2405fpw LCD, you can actually adjust the RGB guns individually. I know you preferred going with native white point and gamma with most LCDS since you can't usually adjust the RGB guns on LCDs, but in this case should I go with the standard 6500k and 2.2 since I can adjust the RGB gun? I'm also wondering about luminance. What should I set it to? I also used your suggestion and started out with 120 as recommended for LCD, but I've decrease the brightness on my LCD all the way down to "0" already, and the monitor luminance is still measuring at 160. I can't really adjust it down any more. One thing I've noticed is that if I use the pre-defined sRGB color temperature on Dell's monitor setting, I can get the luminance down to around 130-140, but if I use the usered-defined RGB color space (as adjusted by me mannually to match the 6500k using eye-one), I can only get it down to 160.

Sorry to have so many questions, I know that as long as I have an accurately described profile, photoshop can do all the othe conversions, but I would still prefer to have the most neutral looking monitor I can get to begin with. Which settings should I use? Thanks.

I think Epson 2450 is probably a good choice for people who simply don't have extra money sitting around for the Nikon LS-8000, Minolta Scan Multi Pro, or Polaroid 120. Personally if I know I won't be satified with the Epson 2450 right now, and I really need a mf film scanner, I would probably just spend the money and get one of those 3 mentioned above. I doubt waiting for them to fall in price then buy it will ever happen. These mf professional scanners tend to maintain their high cost for a long time, at least till a newer model comes out. That's not likely to happen in another 2 to 3 years at least. By that time, you will want the newer technology, and the 3 scanners listed above will be so outdated.

Those of you with Epson 2450, would you mind posting some scans of your 120 film?

 

Thanks.

i would love to see the scans too. chris, have you figured out how to post images yet?

 

just go the gallery->your portfolio section, and follow the directions.

 

thanks.

thanks chris. you should receive your epson 2450 today right? definitely update us about the scanner, and if possible, post some images.

Most places still don't have it in stock yet, where did you order it from? I'm looking to order one too.

Hi Andrew,

 

Do you know where I can find reviews for the Epson 2450? It's not yet in the store here in the states, so I still couldn't seem to find any reviews for it.

 

Thanks.

even with the newer, more expensive scanners, i think only the new minolta multi-pro lists a 24 x 65 adapter as an option. but of course that's a $3000 scanner.

 

you might want to look into the new epson 2450 flatbed scanner. it has a transparency adpater for up to 4"x9". it offers a dmax of 3.3 and a resolution of 2400x4800. it's only $399. i haven't seen any review for it yet since it's so new.

err... why is everyone arguing over what the theoretical dmax is when the thread is about whether the new minolta scan multi-pro is any good? when i click on the thread, i was expecting to see whether anyone has already gotten a hold of this brand new scanner, and if it really lives up to its specs. maybe y'all should start another thread debating the quality of ccds?

Hi,

 

I tried to attach the Canon 550 EX flash to my Mamiya 645 Pro using

the Canon shoe cord 2. I knew that I could only use the flash in

manual mode, so I did. After I got my negatives back, all the ones

taken with the flash were way underexposed, then I realized that I

wasn't able to adjust the ISO on the flash manually to match the

speed of the film I was using (Kodak Portra 160NC). So here is my

question. Is there anyway around that? Are there any adapters that

allow you to adjust the ISO on the Canon 550 EX? Or do I need to buy

another flash just for the Mamiya? I'm only a casual flash user when

shooting medium format, so I was hoping that I could just use my

Canon flash on the Mamiya. I was able to get decent results with the

Mamiya when I was using a Nikon system and had the Nikon SB28.

However, it seems like Canon took out a lot of the manual control

options on the 550 EX. Any advice is appreciated.

I went ahead and bought the Epson 1640SU Photo scanner, and have found the results to be decent. No shadow noise, unlike most flatbed scanners in this price range, and reasonable shadow details. I've placed some scan samples on my server. All pictures were taken with Mamiya 645 ProTL, Mamiya lenses, and Kodak Portra 160VC. I couldn't get VueScan (latest version) to work with the scanner connected thru SCSI, not sure about USB.

<p>

<a href="http://brucelin.com/mf/display.asp">Scan Samples</a>

Hi,

 

Not sure why not more people recommend the 645 format. It sounds like portability is an important issue for you, and in that case, I would recommend that you look into the 645 format. Personally I use the Mamiy 645 Pro TL system, which I think is a great system with sharp lenses. It is also very modular and portable. You might also want to look into the newer autofocus models from Pentax, Mamiya, and Contax. If you are not satisfied with 35mm, 645 format is definitely a significant enough upgrade, and although it's not as big as 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, most of them don't allow you to hand hold as easily as a 645.

Hi,

 

I'm thinking about getting the new Epson 1640 Photo scanner for 645

scanning. Has anyone tried out one of these yet? Is it a big

improvement over the Epson 1200, and how is it compared to the

expensive Epson 1600 pro? Please post if you have actual experience

with it. Thanks.

Hi Ken,

 

Good question. I'm wondering about the same thing since I'm also heading to the Northwest at the end of June. Please do post if you find any information.

 

Thanks.

 

Bruce Lin