If it were that simple then other companies should have been able to implement it. In the Nikonscan program, you would select Kodachrome as opposed to the positive or negative setting.
Last edited:
I wonder if it has to do with the wavelength of the ir emitter? Perhaps 850nm or 940nm would work, but not 720nm.
Nikon took the easy/smart way out when it offered it's "new" (think Spiratone) slide copy device.
Epson should have been able to deliver a substantial upgrade on the V700 series scanners with the V800-- instead, they switched from CFL's to LED's, and claimed they made some improvements on the coating for the lenses.
Three micro-steppers and associated focus sensors would have made it a revolutionary step forward, but that would have cost an extra $20.
I think that the greatly reduced scanning time due to Epson's move to LED from CFL is a substantial improvement. I believe they at least halved the scan times - possibly even more specially when ICE is turned on.
Sorry-- didn't mean to imply the switch to LED was pointless. But it was trivial. If anything, it simplified the system, since there was no longer a wait time on the CFL's warming up.
Similarly, the V8xx holders are an improvement in most areas-- they're more difficult to load 120 film into, especially if the 120 film in question is a teensy bit wider, but they do help control flatness, without newton rings. There are conflicting reports on whether they are better or worse-- in a few head-to-head comparisons, the V8xx holders are reported to produce better image quality, but filmscanner, for instance, swears they're absolutely terrible and cause chromatic aberration because the back-lighting passes through an extra layer...?
But autofocus on the Epsons would be huge.
Age old question when it comes to scanning color negatives - is it the film or the scanner. If you read enough posts here - and elsewhere, this is always the question. Myself, I have access to many scanners so I can always try a different one for comparison.
Here is an example of a perfectly well exposed frame of Kodak Gold 100 film scanned on the Coolscan compared to a Noritsu with all settings in auto and no post work applied except for combining the two and adding text.
Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr
I have scanned thousands of frames of various films with the Coolscans and occassionally compare results from many scanners. This doesn't happen to most scans I've had from the Noritsu but is one of the worst color failures I've seen over the years. If I didn't have the Coolscan, I would have been left with the same question you - and many others, have - is it the film or the scanner.
I realize you are showing an extreme example of bad Noritsu scan. But, still, it shows me why I always like my own scans from my Nikon LS9000 Coolscan than scans from labs (which are from Noritsu....or sometimes Frontier).
This discussion is very interesting.
What's unfortunate is if one get's poor results how would they even know if it's the film or the scan?.
What's unfortunate is if one get's poor results how would they even know if it's the film or the scan?.
Age old question when it comes to scanning color negatives - is it the film or the scanner. If you read enough posts here - and elsewhere, this is always the question. Myself, I have access to many scanners so I can always try a different one for comparison.
Here is an example of a perfectly well exposed frame of Kodak Gold 100 film scanned on the Coolscan compared to a Noritsu with all settings in auto and no post work applied except for combining the two and adding text.
Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr
I have scanned thousands of frames of various films with the Coolscans and occassionally compare results from many scanners. This doesn't happen to most scans I've had from the Noritsu but is one of the worst color failures I've seen over the years. If I didn't have the Coolscan, I would have been left with the same question you - and many others, have - is it the film or the scanner.
Does it look close?
There seems to be a color cast in the second, sort of purpliest-white. Maybe the white balance is off.
What I meant is that usually, many scans can be corrected quite easily.
But, as in this case, not always entirely. For instance, in the example you did, there are still massive color problems. Sure, the purple background looks closer now, and the black of most of the camera now approaches a true black. However, in several areas there are still problems with color and contrast.
I think this example shows that (1) color correcting a scan well isn't trivial and (2) image information that's lost in the original cannot be reconstructed easily.
Does it look close?
Great job as it looks very reasonable to me. What was the workflow?
In Photoshop I moved various per channel sliders in Layers and increased saturation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?