marius_rustad

<p>The results are in and.. damn.. it's true what they say.. less is more.. for sure..<br /> Looks like it's the "Multi Exposure" that does the most harm.. when you multisample as well.. disaster..<br /> One spin at Fine? Sharp and perfect.<br /> The additional data gained with the use of multi exposure and multisample equals 0.000001. Not worth it. Not even needed.. Just.. don't.. do.. it.. I'm also amazed at how much the negative strip moves inside the holder while staying in the scanner for a longer period of time.. wild.<br /> Images:<br /> <strong>Fine</strong><br /> <img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/test_fine.png" alt="" width="879" height="553" /><br /> <strong>Fine + Multi Exposure</strong><br /> <strong><img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/test_fine+multi.png" alt="" /><br /></strong><br /> <strong>Fine + 2 samples</strong><br /> <strong><img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/test_fine+2samples.png" alt="" /><br /></strong><br /> <strong>Fine + Multi Exposure + 2 samples</strong><br /> <img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/test_fine+multi+2samples.png" alt="" width="943" height="1029" /></p>

<p>I'm satisfied with the results. That's it for me. Thanks.</p>

<p>Okay, a lot of responses here and some additional questions.. First of all, I need to clear up one essential mistake. I was running Vuescan in my native language and the translation was a little.. unclear.. on one of the main topics here. <strong>It turns out that what I figured as "passes" wasn't actually the passes function, but rather the "number of samples".</strong> Here's what the guide say about the two:</p>

<h3>Input | Number of samples (this is the one I had set to 3)</h3>

<p>This option is available for scanners that support multi-sampling. As the scanner head passes over the media it makes multiple exposures for each location. The results for all samples are averaged.<br /> This is a useful feature because any one exposure may be inaccurate, resulting in noise in the output. Noise will appear as one pixel whose color or tone is different than surrounding pixels. By taking multiple samples and averaging the results, the effect of inaccurate exposure is reduced.<br /> This option will slow down scanning because the scanner is doing more. You should experiment with your scanner to see which balance of speed and accuracy is appropriate.<br /> Number of samples is similar to Number of passes. Multi-sampling is preferable as the scanner head is positioned once, which ensures that the same area will be exposed for each sample. Multi-sampling is available only on a limited number of scanners.<br /> <strong>Advanced Option:</strong> This option is displayed when the scanner is capable of multi-sampling.</p>

<hr />

<h3>Input | Number of passes (this function I don't have with the 9000)</h3>

<p>This option provides a similar function as the Number of samples option, but does not require the scanner to provide hardware support for multi-sampling. Each pass causes a full scan. After all passes are complete, the results are averaged, and the average is saved.<br /> This is a useful feature because any one exposure may be inaccurate, resulting in noise in the output. Noise will appear as one pixel whose color or tone is different than surrounding pixels. By taking multiple passes and averaging the results, the effect of inaccurate exposure is reduced.<br /> This option will slow down scanning because the scanner is doing more. You should experiment with your scanner to see which balance of speed and accuracy is appropriate.<br /> On multiple passes the scanner head needs to be repositioned precisely at the same location as where it started on the previous pass. Some scanners do not support this operation. Others do, but reposition incorrectly, which will cause a blurred result.<br /> <strong>Advanced Option:</strong> This option is displayed when the scanner is capable of scanning the same image more than once.<br /> ---------------<br>

As you know, I was also running the Multi Exposure. Here's what the guide has to say about it:</p>

<h3>Input | Multi exposure</h3>

<p>This option provides a way to get additional detail from the darker parts of the scanned image. It is available on scanners that are able to increase the CCD exposure time.<br>

A first pass is performed as usual with the normal RGB exposure. This will be an appropriate exposure for the image as a whole. Then a second pass is performed with a longer exposure, which can reveal additional detail in dark areas not captured in the first pass. VueScan then merges the results of the two by choosing from either the first or second exposure pass.<br>

<strong>Advanced Option:</strong> This option is displayed when the scanner can control the CCD exposure time.<br>

----------------------<br>

<br /> Okay, so I'll get started now with that last negative and try doing a couple of different takes.<br /> ..and to the person whi asked why I'm using Vuescan.. Well, I just liked it and figured I'd just stick with it. It's been treatin' me fair so far, so .. yeah.. I'm sure I can get as good results with Vuescan as with Nikon Scan.<br /> Gimme a few hours and I'll have some tests.</p>

<p>Thankful for all responses and answers have been taken to consideration. As stated earlier, I'll play around with the three settings I actually have set (fine, passes and multi) and see what does the trick tonight. Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 13, 2011; 09:32 p.m.<br>

There is no "3 pass" in the LS-9000. Multipass scanning native to the LS-9000 is done on each line in the scan in powers of two (1,2,4 or 8). It sounds like you are passing the film completely through the scanner three times. I would expect some degree of mis-registration in this process.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If this is so.. then why am I able to set the number 3 in Vuescan? I have never read this anywhere, but I'm intrigued.. I'm playing with the settings later on tonight.. we'll see if anything helps.</p>

<p>The scan is completely raw.. no ICE, no dice, no nothing.. as clean as possible.<br /> All I do is 3 passes, fine mode and multiexposure.<br /> I'll play around with the settings and report back..</p>

<p>That was my first thought too.. but have a look at this next one. It's a 100% crop of a car antenna.. see how it "doubles"? Also, the grain seems to "double" too.. sorta..<br>

<img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/coolscan9000_2.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hey everyone,<br /> I'm seeing some weird things happening when scanning 35mm on my Coolscan 9000 using the stock holder and Vuescan.<br /> It's like dust/grain gets duplicated and slightly offset.. sort of like if the negative moved during the process between passes.. Hard to explain.. take a look at the image supplied (100%) and let me know if this is something you have experienced yourself and please share if you found a remedy..<br>

I should add that this happens more often, or is exaggerated, in parts of the image that is out of focus, like the crop below.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/coolscan9000.png" alt="" width="879" height="553" /></p>

Hey guys,

Thank you for your input. Actually Frederick, I have the opposite experience using a black clip-on vs the slip-on. The black

clip-on will not fit properly while the slip-on on my 35mm fits like a charm. I did loose it once, but that was out of my pocket

:-)

 

And, yeah.. you can't go wrong with the filter+hood combo.

Hi!

 

I have a 50mm Summicron with a Leica UV filter attached. The normal lens cap (flat black plastic) doesn't sit very

well on the UV so I figured I'd go for one of those deeper old chrome caps that you "slide" on. (With the red velour-ish

thingie goin' on inside")

 

Like this:

 

My question is, which cap will fit? I know that it's an E39 size, but those old chrome things come in different depths

as well, right?

 

All I know is that the one I have on my 35mm Summicron (also with UV attached) does not fit.

 

 

Best regards,

Marius.

Hi,

 

I'm having the exact same issues with my Epson V700. More and more people are becoming aware of this problem.

Has anyone found a solution yet? Epson support is all, "Have you tried turning your computer on and off, sir?" This is

driving me mad...

<br>

<img src="http://www.marius-rustad.com/3linjer.jpg">