Jump to content

piotr_stanislawski

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    57

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by piotr_stanislawski

    Horseman or Linhof 6x9 Zoom Finder ?

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>Hello,<br>

    I need 6x9 zoom finder for my Horseman VH 6x9, but do not know which one gives larger frame (has higher magnification?) and is brighter and easier to use... Anybody out there who has used both and can share with thoughts?<br>

    I want it also to use in cases of shooting without focusing screen usage - so mounted on the body with hyperfocal marks on bed for needed lens. Can it work for that too?<br>

    Thanks! </p>

    Unoffical Vista X64 driver of LS-8000ED/9000ED for Nikon Scan 4.03

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Hi,<br>

    I have been struggeling with connecting my CoolScan 8000ED (with FireWire 1394 interfece card) to PC Windows 7 64bit for a few days now. I tried this hack but it does not work with NikonScan I instaled. I instaled last VueScan version too to see if it works with my Nikon CoolScan 8000ED scanner but when VueScan software is opened I get information: "No scanner was found connected to PC".<br>

    Scanner is not seen in Device Menager, neither when Nikon Scan is instaled nor VueScan, althought my interface FireWire card is seen there. It seems I have original interface card that Nikon supplied with the scanner: Ratoc PCI-FireWire2 IEEE 1394, see here:<br /><a href="http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/detail/a_id/5978/~/support-for-ratoc-pci-fw2-firewire-card" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/detail/a_id/5978/~/support-for-ratoc-pci-fw2-firewire-card</a><br>

    <br />So, my PC do not see the scanner when connected via an original FireWire cable and an original FireWire interface card. Is it possible that my <strong>Ratoc PCI-FireWire2 IEEE 1394 </strong>interface card does not work with Windows 7 64bit even though the Ratoc controller itself is seen (as NEC) in Device Menager (in the IEEE 1394 host controllers) and even though I have made Update <a href="http://sfdrv.probitsoftware.revenuewire.net/easydriverpro/lp1-multi/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Driver</a> Software of it?<br>

    Do I need first instaled modern 64bit interface card which works with Windows 7 64bit before I will start this procedure? Do you all with WireFire Coolscan changed your current card on the one with 64bit? <br />On Ratoc Systems site in software section for WireFire IEEE 1394 cards it is said my original Ratoc interface card (<strong>PCIFW2)</strong> works only with Win XP/Me/2000/98SE/98. No Win 7 mentioned: <a href="http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/download/software.html#ieee1394" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">RATOC Systems International,Inc : Software Download</a><br>

    So, it this a main reason I can not see the scanner in Device Manager, and instaled Nikon Scan or VueScan do not see the scanner there?</p>

     

    Plustek OpticFilm 120

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>... and what seems more questionable is this "true" 4,01 Dmax with SilverFast double-exposure pass.<br>

    Read this interesting thread "Multi Exposure scan with old dedicated film scanners - need EXAMPLES" on Flickr: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157629081616737/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157629081616737/</a> </p>

    <p>"multiple scans with different exposure is basically changing the histogram level in much the same respect as when you adjust dark areas in Photoshop. multiple passes concept is just a selling point made up by the outside scanner software producers trying to have something to sell so people will buy"</p>

    <p>If OpticFilm 120 scanner is capable to reach 3.14 Dmax, how Plustek calculate it has 4.01 Dmax. with SilverFast double esposure pass mode? Second pass with exposure for shadows will generate more noice in the shadows, ok, it brings some details too but this is a soft "work" in histogram level, not the scanner ability wich still has 3,14 Dmax.</p>

    Plustek OpticFilm 120

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p> "And even if it DOESN'T outperform the CS9000 it might still at least push down the prices of the used unes, which are outrageous at the moment".<br>

    really great news. Do not you think Plustek should not ask $2000 if its OpticFilm 120 will not reach Nikon 9000 scan quality which was selling for $2000 during production ? <br>

    Lack of focusing mechanism, poorer lens comparing to that in Nikon, not possibility to use glass for ultimate film flatness on full surface, very long time scanning (the issue which Plustek is struggling now with OpticFilm 120 - what is probably the reason why it postponed the official selling day)... they do not give reasons to believe Plustek 120 scanner will reach 9000ED scan quality. </p>

    Canon 9000F or Epson V600

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    <p>Which one would you recommend (Canon 9000F or Epson V600) considering only <strong>b&w 120 film</strong> scanning? I look for a scanner for my b&w 120 films and want to get the best from my negs. I take into consideration buy a film holder fron BetterScanning too. Nikon 9000 it's too expensive for me.</p>

    <p>Thanks.</p>

    HELIAR lens - coated or uncoated?

    in Large Format

    Posted

    <p>Thank you for explanation. I meant using coloured filters like orange and yellow for b&w landsape. Just last question: when using coloured filters on uncoated or coated lenses (I mean Heliars) is always better to have coated filters attached than uncoated?<br>

    I have some coloured Zeiss Ikon, Voigdlander and Leitz filters from 60', and do not know if they are even single coated... do you know if these brand makers made coatings on filters at that time?</p>

     

    HELIAR lens - coated or uncoated?

    in Large Format

    Posted

    <p>Bruce wrote:<br>

    "I believe that lens coating started being used in the late 1930s. It was not used on many brands of lenses until after WWII. It makes the pictures sharper by reducing reflections, and works for both color and B&W. If you like a softer old time look get uncoated. Otherwise coated".<br>

    What about using filters (for b&w photography) on uncoated Heliars: to keep softer look it should be used uncoated ones?<br>

    And if you put coated filters on coated Heliars the pictures will be even more contrasty?</p>

     

    VOIGTLANDER HELIAR 105mm f/3.5 coverage

    in Large Format

    Posted

    <p>Hi,<br>

    I owned Heliar 10,5 cm f/3.5 single coated lens dated from 1958 (it is from Bergheil 6x9 camera) and want to use it with Graflex Century. Do someone knows if this f/3.5 lens version has much more coverage than f/4.5 version? Someone suggested so (I know it was Dynar lens design and was superior to the f/4.5 Heliar in all aspects but astigmatism). I could not find any data info about Heliars f/3.5 lenses.<br>

    regards.</p>

    Voigtlander Bergheil 6x9 - and 3 LENSES

    in Classic Manual Film Cameras

    Posted

    <p>The outside rear element lens diameter of Horseman Pro 75mm f/5.6 is 30mm - the lens is truly small (shutter diameter is 55mm) and I suppose it will fit. I know that Heliar 15cm rear diameter is 44mm and may be too large to fit to the Bergheil's 6x9 metal board (see the picture, this is exactly the model I want to buy) but looking at the picture the hole looks quite large... to compare - the outside diameter of Heliar 105mm lens seen on the photo is 28,5mm.<br />Hope there is vintage Schneider, Rodenstock or Dagor 150mm lens that will.<br />I am a bit suprised there are not clear informations about focal lengh of the lenses that could be used with Bergheil 6x9, 9x12 or 10x15.</p>

    <p> </p><div>00U6ne-161009684.jpg.3bdb0eea62dc05280d8b24bf912c06ac.jpg</div>

×
×
  • Create New...