«

In article <>,
Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>Andrew Koenig <> wrote:
>
>>There is what looks like a piece of dust in the sky, and it's out of focus.
>>The grain is also not in focus. These two facts suggest to me that the
>>scanner is not focusing properly. Whether it's a hardware, a software, or a
>>workflow problem, I don't know.
>
>Somebody suggested that too in another forum. Coult it be that you need
>to remove the slide from the plastic frame or does the Nikon LS 50
>scanner have an autofocus mechanism which corrects that ?

Zoom-in in NikonScan preview such that you can see the grain. First get
the preview with autofocus and them move the focus point to a contrasty
part in the preview and get another preview.

If the focus improves, you have to investigate the focusing problem. Maybe
the slide is not flat enough.


--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Andrew Koenig wrote:

> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>
>>My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
>>with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
>>scanned at 4000 dpi.
>>
>>Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
>>http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg
>>
>>This image sucks, since it's totally blurred.
>
>
> There is what looks like a piece of dust in the sky, and it's out of focus.
> The grain is also not in focus. These two facts suggest to me that the
> scanner is not focusing properly. Whether it's a hardware, a software, or a
> workflow problem, I don't know.

Good observation. Alfred: verify that the scanner is in
autofocus mode. That should work 19 times out of 20. With
Vuescan you can manually focus as well (I believe), not sure at
all about the Nikon application.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
> with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
> scanned at 4000 dpi.
>
> Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
> http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

You shoudl first establish that the lens wasn't teh cause of teh problem -
project the slides.

>
> This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
> heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
> again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
> visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
> resolution.

Which means something is terribly wrong

>
> The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).
>
> A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
> 4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
> scanner.

This is just bullshit.

>
> I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
> but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
> images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
> dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Look? did he project them? Or jkust loko at the frame in bad light?

>
> Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
> like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> Andrew Koenig <> wrote:
>
> >There is what looks like a piece of dust in the sky, and it's out of focus.
> >The grain is also not in focus. These two facts suggest to me that the
> >scanner is not focusing properly. Whether it's a hardware, a software, or a
> >workflow problem, I don't know.
>
> Somebody suggested that too in another forum. Coult it be that you need
> to remove the slide from the plastic frame or does the Nikon LS 50
> scanner have an autofocus mechanism which corrects that ?

Already the now glacialy old LS-20 had autofocus. Worked better with
slides than negs but worked.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik <> wrote:

>> I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
>> but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
>> images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
>> dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.
>
>Look? did he project them? Or jkust loko at the frame in bad light?

I guess so. We are now working on the assumption that something must ge
wrong with the autofocus of the scanner. My brother is trying out manual
focus. By the way, he also mentioned that the scanner vibrates a lot -
perhaps this is causing some motion blur.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> Sander Vesik <> wrote:
>
> >> I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
> >> but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
> >> images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
> >> dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.
> >
> >Look? did he project them? Or jkust loko at the frame in bad light?
>
> I guess so. We are now working on the assumption that something must ge
> wrong with the autofocus of the scanner. My brother is trying out manual
> focus. By the way, he also mentioned that the scanner vibrates a lot -
> perhaps this is causing some motion blur.

Is it on a solid flat surface?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Alfred Molon wrote:

> My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
> with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
> scanned at 4000 dpi.
>
> Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
> http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg
>
> This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
> heavily.....

It's clearly not worth the bother...

> The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).
>
> A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
> 4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
> scanner.

Nonsense.

This is about as good as I can get out of my Canon FS4000 and slow slide
film.

http://members.cox.net/geonerd/19f_full.jpg
Ragged/black edges cropped, downsized 4:1

http://members.cox.net/geonerd/19f.jpg
Full res, cropped.

This is an unsharpened (the scanner does some USM by default) and
otherwise raw image. View at 1:1 and compare with yours at 1:1
Something is very wrong....

> I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
> but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
> images.

Is he projecting them, or just holding them up to the light? Just about
EVERY slide looks good when it's an inch across...

Try some pics with a prime lens, f8, and tripod. Your image looks
somewhat like what my cheap digicam poops out when shot at fastest
aperture (eg. a problem with the lens.)

> So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
> dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Not unless it's got the focusing problem you suspect.

> Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
> like this one?

No, an LS 50 should be capable of much better.

>What can be done to get a sharp scan ?

One thing the others haven't suggested: Make sure the film in going in
the scanner correctly. I it's scanned with the emulsion on the wrong
side, the result will be poor.

Good luck.

-Greg

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Sander Vesik <> wrote:
>
>
>>>I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
>>>but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
>>>images.

>>Look? did he project them? Or jkust loko at the frame in bad light?

> I guess so. We are now working on the assumption that something must ge
> wrong with the autofocus of the scanner. My brother is trying out manual
> focus. By the way, he also mentioned that the scanner vibrates a lot -
> perhaps this is causing some motion blur.

Many scanners buzz when moving the slide carrier quickly, it should be
almost completely smooth when scanning. You'll still hear the stepper
motor making a quiet bzzzzzzz, but you shouldn't be able to feel
anything more than a light tingle, if that.

Put the scanner on a mouse pad for starters, just to dampen any unwanted
vibrations.

-Greg