(201 to 300 of 389 replies)
Waitingforthelight 4:09am, 16 November 2013
I was browsing the B&H website because I may be looking for a new scanner (considering a PI Primefilm 7200u) when I noticed 2 new PI scanners - the XE and XA. They claim an optical resolution of 10000dpi. I was surprised that I had not heard of these new models. The interesting thing is that they are listed by B&H and Adorama, but they are not on the Pacific Image website.
Does anyone have any information on these new models?
1 3
(201 to 300 of 389 replies)
chickentender™ (Eyewanders Foto) Posted 5 years ago. Edited by chickentender™ (Eyewanders Foto) (member) 5 years ago
Full album here (currently uploading - should be 42 images total when it's done).
plus.google.com/photos/117658803310762693600/albums/60152...

Incidentally there are a few of the earlier beach images for which I neglected to turn on the dust&scratch correction.. comparing those to the later ones gives you a dang good idea how affective it is.
Circles_of_Confusions☯ Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Circles_of_Confusions☯ (member) 5 years ago
chickentender™ (Eyewanders Foto):

Really awesome shots! :) They scanned very well. What a great thing to have a Dad that took slide shots for you to have now. ;D Go XE and XA! "The only way to scan."
pixel blind 5 years ago
I sent back my 2nd XE. It had vertical banding on the left side of dark Kodachrome slides just like the first XE I had. I wasn't able to replicate the banding on color negatives. I have over 700 color negatives, but only a small number with very light areas. No banding in any of these. I had 1 TMAX B&W with very, very faint banding (sky area). I had to increase exposure in lightroom to even see the banding in the B&W, which made the image very overexposed.

Probably the orange mask in the negatives and the lower density of negatives hides the issue of banding

Almost all my slides are Kodachrome. Every kodachrome with a dark area on the left had vertical banding.

So do I exchange for a 3rd XE or go for a different scanner. In the end I sent it back for an XA. should have it by this weekend.

I sent the XE back before the new firmware release and drivers which might have fixed the issue.

The XA is supposed to have a different sensor and electronics. I will test this weekend to see if the banding has gone
pixel blind 5 years ago
did a google search and found this

download.scanace.com.tw/CVX_5/X_series/ChangeLog

looks like the Primefilm XA may be the same as the Reflecta RPS 10M
Circles_of_Confusions☯:

I did come across some banding a couple shots I scanned, but nothing that bothered me enough to exchange but I'll definitely be keeping my eye on it. Over all, the quality I'm getting out these old slides is so impressive, particularly with the dust/scratch removal... my dad was just blown away seeing these in as good or better representation than he'd seen in years, and many of them EVER, those that he never made prints of. Ektachrome certainly was a fine film and I'd say the same about the Kodacolor II shots I've scanned. Amazing to see all these images in this way, today, nearly 50 years later.
pixel blind 5 years ago
Kodachrome has much higher density range than color negatives and higher than Ektachrome. So if the XE has a Drange of Dmax of 3.9 - Dmin, probably Kodachrome exceeds the real density range of the XE. We are probably seeing noise issues with the CCD.

Ektachrome, color negs, and B&W are porbably within the real density range of the XE, so banding issues (noise?) will probably be nil to minor.

Banding may be even more noticeable on higher density film than Kodachrome such as Fuji Velvia
pixel blind 5 years ago
I have a number of emails with PIE on this issue so they are aware of it.

Wendy at pieus@scanace.com

sent her images with the issue plus a cyberview (debug mode) set of logs and images

there is the possibility that a firmware update will fix it.
pixel blind 5 years ago
Used Vuescan. Selected Kodachrome and default exposure settings
vuescan by pixel blind


here is the same image where I increased exposure in lightroom
banding by pixel blind


both XE scanners showed identical banding in the same area
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
chickentender™ (Eyewanders Foto):

Wow, thanks for sharing, not just the "scans" but a bit of your life as well. What time period do these cover? Sixties and 70's?

On a different note, photo #40 would probably be considered by some to have broken a few "rules" but I'm diggin' it. Very evocative. Worthy of a special place on your wall.

The XE and XA look like they could really give the venerable Coolscan a run for the money. Since Coolscan series has it's own pool perhaps the Primefilm series should also...

... Done.
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
Just looked at the Vuscan site and they report a rather significant difference in "optical DPI" between the XE and XA.
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

and the vuescan site shows different values than PIE, B&H, Reflecta, and ...

from the Q&A at B&H for the XE and XA: 10,000 interpolated, 5,000 optical
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
pixel blind:

So far, I've been loving my XA. Scanned about 10 rolls, 24 exp each, using Vuescan.

Still working on my ever-changing workflow, but the device itself has been working well.
pixel blind 5 years ago
I keep tracking my XA. Its in Secaucus, NJ, with delivery COB this Friday. I have ~200 slides I scanned with the XE, so will hope to post a direct comparison with the XA this weekend.
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
pixel blind:

That would be great. I'll be looking forward to seeing your comparisons.
dennisinst.louis 5 years ago
3600dpicrop,100 percent crop by dennisinst.louis
dennisinst.louis Posted 5 years ago. Edited by dennisinst.louis (member) 5 years ago
This is a 100 percent crop 3600 dpi converted from tiff,using cheap Fuji superia 200,very minor usm in post lots of grain but detail too.The full image made a very sharp 12x18.
dennisinst.louis Posted 5 years ago. Edited by dennisinst.louis (member) 5 years ago
I forgot to mention lens used was a tamron 90mmf2.5 adaptall one of my sharpest lenses of about two dozen or so I have.I do hate to pixel peep reminds me of the gear heads over dp review ect
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
"Lots of grain", but really well resolved grain. Nice.

I agree about pixel peeping but, for me, it is the only way to remove myself from the aesthetic side of things in order to evaluate something from a purely technical standpoint. It makes switching gears, so to speak, easier. Once everything has been evaluated accordingly then it's easy to confidently switch gears back to concentrating on nothing but aesthetics.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
A couple of crops illustrating the strange behavior of the XE when using multi-exposure. I've returned this particular unit for an exchange.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/55943498@N00/14236413672/in/photostream]

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/55943498@N00/14052093107/in/photostream/]
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

Multi exposure is done in two separate passes, then the images are combined.

With mulit-exposure, registration issues with the second pass aligning with with first pass is a common problem with Primefilm XE and many other scanners. You will probably have the same issue with the replacement. It is a combination of a hardware and software issue.

I tried mulitexposure and also found the registration is off on the second pass. Vuescan 9.4.30 may help with this but probably not.

I didn't try with cyberview or silverfast. I had googled this issue some time ago and found others had alignment issues as well (and with other scanners). Even if the alignment was better, some found the image was a little softer.

The purpose of multi exposure is to get greater detail in the shadow areas (like having a higher Dmax). This really only applies to slide film. The XE Dmax is high enough and negs are compressed into a much narrower range, there is no gain in using multi exposure with negatives.

I saw very little improvement in dynamic range with multi exposure and Kodachrome slides, and with the increase in scanning times didn't feel it was worth the bother. This was with scanning Kodachromes. Dmax for Kodachromes ~3.7, real world Dmax of the XE may be about 3.4 - 3.5. so there is room for improvment. Multi exposure is suppose to improve dynamic range and capture more shadow detail. Some Fuji slide films have much higher Dmax than Kodachrome so may really benifit from multi exposure.

Multi scanning to reduce noise in the dark areas of slide works well. There are no alignment issues since this is done in a single pass. For me 4 passes seem a good compromise between speed and noise reduction

If your mostly scanning negs, then you won't miss mult exposure

I expect my XA to arrive this weekend so will be able to see what a higher Dmax looks in comparison to the XE.
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

older discussion on multi exposure

www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157629081616737/
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Thanks for that insight. It's not like the single passes looked bad. I'm still testing the boundaries of what the XE can do. I'm looking forward to an XE/XA comparison. The examples I posted are Provia 100f. I'd like to shoot slides since I can use a loupe to proof before committing to any scans. I also think slides "pop" a little more. If the scanner can't reproduce that sense of detail, however, then I should probably just shoot negative I guess.

I posted on the Hamrick FB page and emailed Hamrick support but haven't gotten a reply yet.

Read a bit of that thread you linked to, also. Interesting.
optofonik:

Huge range of time there - we were essentially just digging through a large box of my dad's old slides and pulling out anything that looked fun. From 1965 on up through even a few slides from the very late 80s, but yeah mostly late-60s and 70s era.

Broke rules? Do you mean pointing smack at the sun and watch the flare roll in with the river? :) I'm not much for rules.
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

another link about multi exposure and soft images

photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cZlZ
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
Interesting thread. The scans by Wouter Willemse from his Reflecta ProScan 7200 are quite nice.

photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17477372
pixel blind 5 years ago
I have my XA

I had 2 XE scanners which I returned for the XA

Both XE scanners had noticeable banding in dark areas of slides. The XA has NO banding issues.

Interesting observations with Vuescan.

the XE multi pass would move to the first line, sample each pixel x number of times, move to the next line, sample each pixel x number of times until the scan was complete. Basically did multi pass in one scan.

Now the XA in multi pass mode does one full scan, then repeats the scan x number of times.

Both did multi exposure the same way. scan at regular exposure, then one additional scan at different exposure

With both XE scanners, multi exposure resulted in very blurred images, registration errors between the two scans.

With the way the XA does multi pass and multi exposure, scans are fine. No blur. Registration of the multiple scans seem to line up perfectly. I did different slides up to 8 passes, no problems. Now be aware I have only tested one XA scanner.

Kodachrome examples

XE scan, multi pass = 4, down sized to 2000 dpi long side
pie xe by pixel blind


XA scan, multi pass = 4, down sized to 2000 dpi long side
pie xa by pixel blind


comparison crop at 1:1 of xe (left) and xa (right)
scan xe xa by pixel blind


The XA appears to provide a slightly sharper, higher resolution image than the XE. On some slides, the XA seems to provide darker blacks with less noise. The biggest plus for me is no banding. IQ seems to be slightly better with the XA, but multi pass scanning is slower. multipass more than 4 has very diminishing returns. Multi exposure showed very little gain in the shadows, but added noise to the image.

Also picked up a box of Gepe plastic slide mounts. Slide mounts are a must for scanning strips of 2 or single frames.
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Great comparison between the two scanners, and notes about multipass and multiexposure. In my trials I've been more than happy with single passes and then minor tweaking in post for sharpening and noise rather than trying to get it from the scanner.

I need to pick up some of those Gepe mounts.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

It's great to see these and I definitely see a difference in the crops and even a bit in the full sized versions. The XA scan is noticeably sharper in the crops to me but it seems to lack the contrast of the XE scan. As a result of the increased contrast the XE creates the illusion that the difference in sharpness is actually less than it is. Having said that, it's certainly easy enough to increase the contrast of any scan..

Now that you've used the XA and XE I wonder what your conclusions about IQ are if you don't take into account the banding problem you experienced with the XE. If the XE units you used hadn't been defective, do you think you would have been happy with the IQ of the XE now that you've used the XA?

In both models it sounds like you believe multi-sampling to be nominally useful but that multi-exposure does more harm than good.

Thanks again for the comparison.

EDIT

I downloaded the two full sized images and increased the contrast of the XA version to closer match the XE. When a/b viewing on my non-color managed laptop monitor there appears to be different color casts in the shadows between the two. Doesn't effect comparing the effect of contrast on apparent sharpness, though.

Even viewing 1:1 I can start to see a difference in sharpness; The Yamaha tank badge is sharper in the XA scan.
pixel blind:

Nice work!
pixel blind 5 years ago
Kodacrhomes, Vuescan, XE and XA scans

With XE and Kodachrome slides, I used the default black, white, curve low and high values. Chose Kodachrome and output profile as prophoto since I use lightroom. I typically picked a color balance of neutral or white balance. Colors came out OK and the tonal range on the histogram typically was stretched out. I approximate it to be close to 0 to 255. I usually left exposure and color alone. I did play with luminance and sharpening. fairly minimal post processing. I increase luminance to remove scan noise (the splotchy look of scans, especially in skin areas).

With the XA and Kodachrome slides if I used the same vuescan defaults as with the XE, the tonal values were more like 60 to 255 on the histogram and the image looked slightly washed out. to get around the washed out look, in vuescan changed color balance to none, and curve low to 35 to stretch out tonal values closer to 0 and 255 on the histogram. the image comes out darker, but this starts with a wider tonal range which is a good idea. then in lightroom I tend to use auto tone as a starting point for exposure, etc. It usually does a pretty good job and I don't mess too much with any thing else except luminance and sharpening.

in vuescan I temporarily set color balance to auto to lighten the image so I can see the slide mount border and set the scan frame, then reset to none for the actual scan.

I sometime play with the tone curve and adjust some of the mid tones just to play around with the look

I import the image into lightroom to view the histogram for tonal values. I really haven't figured out the vuescan graphs.

So to get better colors takes just a little more work with the XA. Overall, to my eye the XE is better out of the box with default color settings and I didn't find I could really improve on this in post processing. With the XA, with a little tweaking between vuescan and lightroom, I can do a little better than the XE.

I really like the ability to set the focus point. I move it to where I feel is the focal point of the slide should be, like a face. this way if there is any bend/curl in the film, I'm more likely to get what I feel is the important part of the image in better focus.

Now that I have used the XA and have tweaked my process, to me the IQ is better. I'm keeping my XA. since I had started with the XE, if it had no banding issues, I would have stayed with the XE, but would have always wondered if I should have spent just a little more for the XA. the banding issue forced my hand to upgrade.
pixel blind 5 years ago
I should have mentioned I do the following in lightroom

I sometime play with the tone curve and adjust some of the mid tones just to play around with the look
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Couldn't ask for a better evaluation. Thanks. I'll be following your Photostream looking for more XA scans.
MOD
Hannu_E_K 5 years ago
pixel blind:
With the XA, with a little tweaking between vuescan and lightroom,

From reading the above it seems to me you should have use for a preset or two:
www.google.se/search?q=lightroom+preset
dennisinst.louis Posted 5 years ago. Edited by dennisinst.louis (member) 5 years ago
Great review,maybe the xa is better for mounted slides because of the auto focus.My scans so far have been very sharp.I only shoot negatives and the film is held very flat.So far im very pleased with the xe.
pixel blind 5 years ago
dennisinst.louis:

I like the XE neg holders. I got very good results with my negatives. I never saw any banding during normal use. If I only had negatives, I probably would never have upgraded to the XA. I managed to see banding in a B&W frame only by looking for an image with very white sky, then extreme overexpose in lightroom. Then I saw very faint banding, even then I had to look for it. I think the lower dynamic range of negatives masks the banding issue.

PIE has a new firmware release on the reflecta site. I didn't test the new firmware since it came out just after I dropped off my XE at UPS. I had an extensive email conversation with PIE and also filled out a trouble report plus sent diagnostic images to PIE on the banding issue. It may be a calibration issue that may be fixed in firmware.
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
Well, this thread convinced me to call B&H and have them replace the XE I sent back with an XA instead of an even exchange. I should have some scans of my own to post here and in the PIE Primefilm Scanner Users group soon. Running a test roll of Fujifilm 200 through my Electro 35 this weekend and expecting to do the same next weekend with a QL17 scheduled to arrive later this week.

Feels good to be using film again.
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
Oh man, I am really loving my XA even though I may not be realizing it's full potential yet.

I've been really happy, especially with my last two posts.

Chocolates and Happiness

Grooving With 1 of 3

Just played around with the Basic and Tone Curve develop modules in LR with only default output sharpening for the screen applied.

For B&W, I use these steps as they allow me more freedom to change up in post.
www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php

For color, I scan in RAW and use ColorPerfect. Earlier posts here go into great detail on this.
pixel blind 5 years ago
so far I like the XA, but I have to work more on stretching the tonal values on the histogram to be closer to 0 and 255. Epson scan and silverfast implements this so much better than Vuescan.

the XA has better resolution and focus than the XE. On focusing here is my experience

I started with an epson V500. My first neg scans were terrible. Way out of focus. But I used a minolta autofocus SLR. the small prints were fine. whats wrong with this scanner!! I went round and round (and many, many hours) with this and finally realized after scanning different images and using several V500 and one V600 that its a combination of scanner, resolution, and the actual negatives. One of the V500 scanners focus was physically way, way off. The second V500 was better and theV600 I bought happened to have the best focus. But what about the out of focus negs? what I learned is even with the state of the art autofocus (1988) SLR, many of my negatives were just not as sharp as I thought. One of the first negs I scanned was actually out of focus to start with.

what I found is that its a combination of film curl, the orignals aren't in focus like I thought, and the actual scanner focus/resolution. Then I started scanning slides with the V600 and they were just way out of focus, no matter what slide I tried to scan. I wasn't about to remount all my slides or use the epson negative holder.

In the quest for higher resolution and better sharpness I bought a (costco) Pacific Image CS3600 film scanner that looks like a Pacific Image primefilm 7200 for less money. It definitly provided sharper images and higher resolution but only the bundled cyberview software works with it. No silverfast or vuescan compatiblity (crippled in firmware?). I didn't use it much and quickly returned. sometimes being cheap doesn't work. About to purchase a real primefilm 7200 when the XE was anounced.

Now the XE is a step up from the CS3600 (7200) and a huge increase over the Epson V600. I was testing it out (very late at night which was a bad idea at the time) with a neg I had previously scanned with the V600. Wow, look at all those scratches and dust. Vuescan IR is not working!! Next day, I actually compared with IR on/off and compared with the Epson scan with IR on/off and realized that increased resolution of the XE was resolving way more than V600. I found that IR does work, but only to a point. The XE resolves so much more to include much more of the scratches, dust, etc that were obscured by the lower focus and resolving power of the epson.

Now on to the XA. Again, it is resolving more of the scratches/dust than the XE. I have a 1961 Kodachrome slide I know has issues, but with the XE and Vuescan IR on light, the slide came out pretty good. Practically all the dust, scratches, etc disappeared. With the XA (even with IR on), suddenly I see things that were hidden on the XE scans. with the 1961 Kodachrome, I see what looks like bubbles (and in great focus) all over the sky that were not visible with the XE scan. Research shows this slide most likely has a "protective" lacquer on the emulsion side that is deteriating.

so, the quest for increased resolution and focus is a double edged sword. On clean, scratch free, slides/negatives, scans with the XA can be fantastic. Those with issues (even with IR on) can mean a lot of work in lightroom.

comparison resolution (published) numbers and my experience:

Epson V600: 1560
Prime Film 7200: 3250
Prime Film XE: better than the 7200
Prime Film XA: better than the XE

Can't get good scanned image sharpness/focus if the original image is out of focus. What looked good back when quite often looks bad now with a good film scanner and pixel peeping

On the screen, lots of images look OK if viewed at 1:8 or 1:4 (about the size of old 4X6 prints). it is when increasing (pixel peeping) above this (and high resolution scans) that we really start to see the limitation of the original image.

here is a good link on focus: www.old-photo.com/pages/focus.htm

and more rambling on color correction. All my slides were shot with a camera with no autofocus (split prism), no autoexposure (line up the needle), with lots of under/over exposed, slightly out of focus, shot with OK but not great optics, and sometime with extreme color cast (way beyond the Kodachrome blue cast) by people were more amateur than advanced. so I just try to adjust the histogram (stretch between 0 and 255) in Vuescan, then do the best I can in lightroom but try to severly limit my time on color correction. I try to get something reasonable quickly. Can spend way too much time going round and round to make a pig look better. A good scanner (XA) and lightroom only go so far. These are family and trip pics so important to me otherwise I wouldn't even bother to scan.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
My XA just shipped. Thanks for even more validation. :)

Good read on focusing and slide condition at that link.
pixel blind 5 years ago
with the XE, Kodachromes, and Vuescan. On the input tab I selected slide. On the color tab, selected Kodachrome. I also set the black point and white point to 0 and left curve low and high at default values. I usually got decent scans and the histogram black point was close to the left (checked in lightroom). I would flip between neutral or white balance and kept what looked better

with the XA, I tried the same process and ended up with histogram black point shifted to the right by quite a bit. I managed to move the black point on the histogram to the right by decreasing curve low. I find setting the black and white points not so obvious in Vuescan.

A little research found this site: archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/scan_part2.htm

What I was doing was adjusting the contrast with curve low and high which also happens to move the black and white points.

The black point and white point % is supposed to be the tools to adjust histogram black and white points.

I turned on the pixel colors to show clipped blacks and increase the black point %. by looking at the histogram in lightroom, less than or =.02% black pixels throws the histogram off to the right.

I'm starting with the black and white % set to 0, curves low/high at default, looking at the histogram in lightroom, then adjust and look again... an iterative process. I'm finding this works, but not nearly as well as how it is implemented in Epson scan and even silverfast. I find using the Vuescan output graph not much help.

I start with neutral color balance. sometime white balance is slightly better. with some slides that have really, really off color, I use auto levels

I am getting good scans out of the XA, just trying to get a better grip on Vuescan and refine my process
pixel blind 5 years ago
I seem to mix up my right and left in the previous post.

with the XA, I'm finding that moving the histogram to the left by adjusting the black point % works just find

Default histogram for the black point shifts significantly to the right with the XA, which compresses the tonal values into a much smaller range. Lightroom doesn't show any pixel values in the far left. It only takes a few very dark pixels to shift the histogram to the right. this is probably due to much higher Dmax of the XA. Object is to move the black point to the left and spread the tonal values between close to 0 and 255.

adjusting black point to .02 works fine, sometimes .04
I occasionally adjust white point .02

this is much better than trying to adjust the histogram black point by adjusting curve values
rosshj 5 years ago
Here are some (of my latest) scans from difference film types using the XE...

Portra 400
Mike at Granville Island by rosshj


TMAX 400
Strathcona Park Light by rosshj


Provia 100
Boots & Waves by rosshj


Superia 400
Balloons by rosshj


HP5
Road Closed by rosshj
This thread is fantastic. I've a batch of rolls just about ready to go into the lab so should be able to contribute a bit more in not too long.
Hats off to all your comparisons and images fellas. I had a twinge of an idea about sending my XE back for an XA as well, but I think I'll try that firmware upgrade. I have noticed some VERY slight banding on a couple slide scans as well, but the only slides I'd be developing are old ones - I simply don't shoot slide anymore with Ektar around these days so even if the firmware doesn't address I'll still be working almost exclusively with negs, so will stick with the XE. I've mentioned before - combo'ing it with the F135 is still just making me happy as a clam in.... the ocean... without predators nearby.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
This thread is pretty unique on the internet right now; it's turning into what is probably the best user sourced info available.

Pixel Blind, you are on fire.

Still waiting for the XA but, in the interim, received an EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8N in excellent condition and used it with my "vintage", aka "old", Pentax Auto Bellows and Pentax Slide Copier attachment for one last effort at "camera scanning" and...

... not so much.

The "camera scans" didn't look as good as the EX or even the Swan Photo Labs lo-rez CD scans. They looked better than ones I did with a cheapo $10 Continental enlarger lens but that's not saying much. However, as a macro lens it's really nice so I'll just use it as that and continue to look forward to the XA.
MOD
Hannu_E_K 5 years ago
pixel blind:
this is much better than trying to adjust the histogram black point by adjusting curve values

In Curves you have two triangles below the diagram, one black and one white:
F100-0174_02_2013-12-30+3MP+185_Curve
... these are the very same controls that you're playing with as it seems.

In a levels dialog you have yet another three similar triangles - these corresponds to the ends and middle, e.g. the marked points, of the blue line above. Pull these up/down and you get the same adjustment - with the difference that curves allows adjusting the points "sideways" too.
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
Anyone having this problem with Vuescan at 10000 resolution? The aspect ratio is fine at every other resolution setting.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/55943498@N00/14311260221/]
admin
inetjoker 5 years ago
I wide ride? :D
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
Hahaha. It's actually narrow than most "cars in its class". Wish all it took was a photo to make it wider in real life. ;)
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

I haven't seen. I scan at 5,000, optical resolution of the XE and now the XA
pixel blind 5 years ago
Hannu_E_K:

I have used something similar in Epson scan

default histogram in Epson scan:
epson histogram default by pixel blind


left at default, tonal for this image are extremely compressed to the left.

So move the triangles for the input and change output to 0 and 255
epson histogram adjusted by pixel blind


and this is the histogram in Lightroom
epson histogram lightroom by pixel blind


In Vuescan, I start with 0% clipping of black and white point
Instead of manually setting the black and white points (espson scan), vuescan sets the black and white point automatically. It finds the input dark point and white point and maps them to 0 and 255. with 0 clipping of black point and white point, the histogram of the image in lightroom looks like this:
vuescan histogram lightroom default by pixel blind


I found with the XA, vuescan finds a darker black point and moves the histogram further to the right than the XE.
The method of moving the black and white points in Vuescan is to increase clipping. with a black clip of .02% hers is the histogram in lightroom
vuescan histogram lightroom 02 by pixel blind


clipping also has the effect of increasing contrast

here is the image no clipping
vuescan 0 clip by pixel blind


and with black point .02% clipping
vuescan by pixel blind


if I just want to archive, then no clipping. But I also want to expand the input tonal range into the output range of 0-255. Need to be careful with doing this, even with .02% some images are fine with this, some not so.
admin
inetjoker Posted 5 years ago. Edited by inetjoker (admin) 5 years ago
Archive is nothing but Preserving the Negative or Positive that will the full range to be processed later.
pixel blind 5 years ago
www.scantips.com/simple2.html

this site is dated, but still has excellent info.
explains in good detail why I want to expand the midtones
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
Some info from Ed Hamrick:

"The CCD of this scanner only supports 5000 dpi, but the stepper motor supports 10000 dpi. This is why the stretching when more than 5000 dpi – the CCD is limited to 5000 dpi.

Hmm...

When I use Silverfast at 10000 dpi I don't get the same stretching of the aspect ratio. A bit confused. Maybe Silverfast SE 8 Plus is the better option.
admin
inetjoker 5 years ago
I learned this years ago.
Burlap buster
MOD
Hannu_E_K Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Hannu_E_K (moderator) 5 years ago
pixel blind:
histogram in Epson scan

If you do the same adjustment for all the separate channels (R, G, B), then you get a basic "color correction". The base curve ("RGB" in Epson scan as it seems) is good for brightness/exposure/contrast.

The images you display to show clipping has a slight magenta tone/tint on my monitor.

This is also visible as the red-blu-magenta portion (right hand side) of you Lr-histograms.

It can be removed by adjusting "down" the red and blue channels slightly - in effect fine tuning the white balance.
In practice: Grab the middle of the line in Curves (use the Middle triangle in Levels) and pull down (towards dark).
pixel blind 5 years ago
Hannu_E_K:

setting black & white points and IR dust & scratch removal are the things I do at scan capture. The rest I do in Lightroom.

this image is a Kodachrome slide. No color adjustments before posting
pixel blind 5 years ago
optofonik:

With the XE I did scan a couple images at 10,000, no problem. I did find that the file sizes were just huge. pixel peeping, I just couldn't tell the difference with 10K vs 5k dpi scans.

based on test reports of other scanners (primefilm, espson), scanning at interpolated vs optical just bloats the files without gaining image quality.
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
10,000 scan with my XA shows same type of distortion as @optofonik.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Could I trouble you to post the Vuescan settings you used to achieve the 10,000 dpi scans on the XE without distortion? Based on another reply Ed sent me I sense his response might have been based on a similar assertion to yours that 5k scans are bloated and serve no real purpose.

I found it interesting that when using Silverfast's "WorkflowPilot Assistant" it only allows scanning up to 5000 dpi; doesn't offer any choices above that. It's non-WorkflowPilot Assistant mode offers 10,000 dpi but I wonder to what end.

If it was a bit depth that increased the file's size I could see the point with regard to increasing digital overhead but "overhead" is not in anyway related to dpi. Maybe the question has to do with print size. For large print sizes is it better to interpolate during the scan capture or during editing?
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
Dizzy Cow:

Thanks, DC, for confirming it's not just me.
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
Maybe later I'll run the native XA software at 10,000 to see what happens. No promises. :-)
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
Dizzy Cow:

Using Cyberview (or Silverfast) there is no distortion on my unit; it only happens with Vuescan.
brave cap [deleted] 5 years ago
I noticed a problem at the bottom of this thread's page 1. At the time I figured I was doing something wrong, but I soon came to realise that it was likely VueScan. My XE scans at 10k were being compressed horizontally. This just confirms my suspicion that VueScan and the XE scanner or driver are not playing together nicely.
pixel blind 5 years ago
I don't have the XE anymore, haven't tried 10K with the XA. As of a couple of days ago no new drivers for the XA

If file sizes for 5K TIFF file is ~ 165 MB, then 10K is 4X this or ~ 660 MB. I have Vuescan software save into a lightroom watch folder. The larger file takes so long to save that Lightroom errors on reading in the larger file. I had to save to a different folder, then manually move the file to the Lightroom watch folder.

In Vuescan output tab, should set the printed size to scan size to stop Vuescan resizing the output. Others hvave had some glitches with the output when printed size is set to something other than scan size. Also make sure magnification is set to 100%

XE drivers have been updated I think at least 3 times. the quick and easy way is to do the following. Connect and turn on the scanner. make sure you have internet connection. In windows, go to device manager to update the driver. do the "search automatically for ...". this will update the drivers.

the second way is to uninstall cyberview and re install latest version. may or may not install latest drivers, but will at least update cyberview. When I do this method I still do the update driver process.

both the reflecta and PIE site as of 26 May have the latest version of cyberview (5.16.20).

the following site: www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
has done a number of scan test on Reflecta (PIE) scanners. I expect the XE and XA are similar to their older models in that best scan is done at the optical (5K) vs interpolated (10K).

I emailed B&H about the resolution. answer 5K optical, 10K interpolated.

There may be a slight increase in resolution by scanning at 10K and then in Vuescan Output tab set TIFF size reduction to 2 or more. I tried a couple times but I didn't see anything different from scanning at 5K except takes longer

something for the XA. On the input tab set focus always.
brave cap [deleted] 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Some useful info. Thanks,
dennisinst.louis 5 years ago
Well here I was ready to evilbay my xe to finance an xa but im getting very sharp scans so far.I'm only scanning negs and the film is very flat.I have 5000dpi crop from Fuji superia 200 and tamron 90mm macro.Im sure the xa is better in some ways but the crop from the the xe is quite impressive.The whole image I guess is around 25ish megapixels at 5000 dpi.I also just had a 16x20 3600 dpi scan printed and its sharp as hell and around 17ish megapixels.Also no banding thus far but have updated the drivers and vuescan:
5000dpicrop by dennisinst.louis
Circles_of_Confusions☯ Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Circles_of_Confusions☯ (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

I'm no expert of any-kind, but I can say from personal testing, you can't trust the histogram when it comes to what I'm calling "tails." These are the levels between where the slope of the main descending line falls downward and then takes a turn outward. I've personally place this section into question on all scans as possibly an area of noise. I'm guessing in my mind that as actual levels fall off, they hit a level of sensor noise and the tails are a mix of this, and so subject to removal if I deem them as causing harm to the integrity of the image. Lately I've just been adjusting sliders at positions where main fall off of level plots out to be by simply visually continuing the plot out through what I'm calling the noise level. If you lay a straight edge along the bottom of the levels to cover up the tails, it's pretty easy to see the slope of the nose level. Higher in the blacks, and lower in the whites. With under or over exposed negatives, removing the tail may not be profitable as shadow or highlight recovery may be needed, so this method is not applicable to all images, just most of them IMHO, mine anyway, so far.

If color shit is a problem, I can't say as I only scan B&W, but from when I compared my target with calibrating pre and post calibration, my RGB levels went from pre cal separated tips, to scanner profile, tips rally close together but still apart, to film profile using the slide target to tips right on top of each-other. So, IMHO a scanner and film profile is needed as I noticed a stepwise improvement in controlling levels, and thereby controlling tendency of ending up with scans that have a shift in color of R, G, or B. If the color cast is in the negative (slide positive), at least calibration of scanner and film will limit and prevent exaggeration of it.

So, yes your images shown as examples have magenta color cast that is adjusted for in post pretty easy. I use the "Guided" editor in PSE6 to remove color cast, then adjusting levels manually to remove tails, and then 'ok' and open levels again and do "auto." To get this under control during a scan aside from scanner and film profiles in place is something I haven't worked on yet, but will when I start shooting and developing more color film. I would be interested in seeing what the XA does on its own automatically for comparison to these examples, as it may well have pretty good default handling of such things?
pixel blind 5 years ago
dennisinst.louis:
Your crop looks good pretty good

The XE negative film holders do a very good job holding the film flat. I also got very good results with negatives. I also got good results with slides except for the banding issue. On color negatives, the mask basicaly represents the blackest point, so if the XE has banding issues, it is mostly below the noise level (blackets point) of the negatives.

On the XE I had, firmware version was 1.07. Current firmware on the Reflecta site is 1.09. Wonder when PIE will post on thier site. I had returned my XE before I had a chance to test the new firmware.

I have a large number of slides. Due to slides having a greater dynamic range and banding issues with the XE, I went for an exchange to an XA. I defintily see the results of higher Dmax. Also no banding with the XA.

Now slides still in the slide mounts can have curl plus the XA handles negatives differently, so on the XA autofocus is a good thing.

The resolution of both the XE and XA are probably the same or very similar. The XA will probably do better with film curl, but on the XE, the negative holder could be used with the slide film to possibly help with film with curl.
pixel blind 5 years ago
Circles_of_Confusions☯:
I wouldn't call myself an expert either. Just lots of research plus some scanning experience.

I agree the histogram is not 100% accurate, but close enough for me. and yes, the far left on the histogram may be noise. In lightroom if the pixel count is very low, you can't see these in the lightroom histogram. the tail looks empty.

Vuscan, unlike other scan software, automaticaly finds the blackest and whitest values and autoadjusts the output histogram.

Here is what I have found useful for me with slides.

I start with black and white point (%) at 0. No clipping of either shadows or hightlights in the scan.

In Vuescan, on the color tab, I turned on Pixel colors. This is something not available in other scan software. I found that I can see where the clipping is in the image. typically in Vuescan, after the scan is complete, I increase magnification to see the clipped areas.

Vuescan also has a feature where I can change color settings without having to rescan the entire image. very useful. so I can make a change, save, change, save ..., then compare in lightroom.

so I save with no clipping and save with .02%, and .04% black clipping. I look in vuescan where the clipping occurs and look at the image 1:1 in lightroom. I do see a difference in viewing 1:1 in lightroom. I see the image is slightly darker, contrast is greater (slightly sharper appearing), the image appears with less fog as I increase clipping.

what I have found is if the clipped black is clustered all in one spot, I lose shadow detail in that area. How important or noticable this is depends on the image and where on the image. In some cases, 0% clipping of dark pixels is better.

Now if the clipping is scattered all over the image (not clustered), the loss in shadow detail is not noticalbe at all.

I also compare with .02% white clipping. Often I keep .02% white clipping. Again depends on where in the image this occurs.

The idea of clipping .02 to .04% is to get more mid tones values between 0 and 255 at capture time. These mid tone values cannot be recovered post processing.

I've also noticed with my images, that often I see no difference between .02 and .04% clipping of the black pixels.
pixel blind Posted 5 years ago. Edited by pixel blind (member) 5 years ago
quick search found this:

download.scanace.com.tw/CVX_5/X_series/ChangeLog

version of cyberview shipped with the my XA is 5.15.45

according to the change log, version 5.16.20 should work with the XA!

so I tried 5.16.20 for S&Gs. Doesn't work.
Circles_of_Confusions☯ Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Circles_of_Confusions☯ (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Sounds like you are working on it just like me and doing a pretty good job. Here's a screen capture of when I came up with my idea of "tails."Scanner Noise Levels
dennisinst.louis 5 years ago
Looks good,well I decided to keep my xe and will try and wring the most out of it.If I need huge DR I have my trusty pentax k30 that delivers in spades and has a very weak aa filter.I do like my film images contrasty and punchy that's why I like consumer film.
Circles_of_Confusions☯ Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Circles_of_Confusions☯ (member) 5 years ago
dennisinst.louis:

What's been a big help for me is using reduction from scan dpi to smaller dpi as a way to clear up noise. I looked at your original image full size and compared to the 2048 size on Flickr and you can zoom in to see how noise is reduced a bunch. You can do this when scanning before ever uploading or printing. I scan my B&W on my Epson 6400dpi and size reduction 2 (3200dpi) to get the same effect of removing noise from my images. This is one of the "secrets" to scanning.
dennisinst.louis 5 years ago
That makes sense as it kinda averages out the pixels like shooting high iso on a dslr then reducing the image iv'e done that a lot with iso 6400 images and still have data to make a nice 12x18 print.The few 16x20s ive made so far from xe scans don't show a lot of noise looks more like grain as its not blotchy and purplish red.
pixel blind 5 years ago
dennisinst.louis:

In Lightroom develop module, noise reduction section: one suggestion I read is to change the color noise slider to 75 to 100%. I don't see much change with the color noise slider. Increasing Luminance is the one that makes the most difference.
MOD
Hannu_E_K Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Hannu_E_K (moderator) 5 years ago
pixel blind:
noise reduction

How to reduce noise depends on the camera/scanner/source first of all
- e.g Nikon D300 has a lot of color noise at higher ISO (800+),
this is not the case for the D700 which has less and then in luminance instead.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
For you guys that have the PI XA does it batch scan and hold the frames for an entire roll ??

I had a PI 7200 pro 3 and I bought that scanner specifically to batch scan entire rolls of B+W film.

It was a decent scanner and had a good resolution but it had scan lines on some color negatives and it would not hold the frames in a batch scan.

IE I would load a roll, get it set on the first frame and it might make it through 3-4-5 frames OK then it would usually either short or long move the film. Cant remember which. I called Ed at Vuescan and asked him about it, and he stated that nikon scanners actually count the sprocket holes, but the PI scanner just counts the number of steps and does not try to find the edges of the images so once its off, it is off for the entire roll of film. IE its a dumb film transport.

I would still like a batch scanner if they have upgraded the film carrier mechanism or software so it actually finds a frame and not just count steps.
pixel blind 5 years ago
Troy Ammons:

haven't tried. besides my negative strips are 5 frames or less

any one else?
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
Will it run 5 frames without shifting the images off ?
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
Troy Ammons:

Yes, during Batch Auto scanning it does shift a bit, especially when side by side frames are dark (is transparent on the negative).

What I've noticed, however, is that when selecting certain frames in List mode, it's more consistent. I'll try that mode, but scan each frame as a test, but that won't be until I develop my next roll... just loaded in my camera.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
Okay, Thanks.

I basically want to be able to batch scan an entire roll as jpegs as a preview at a lower rez then go back into the frames I want final scans for and manually scan those as tiffs individually. If it slips just a little that would be okay if it then corrects on the next frame or so. What happened to me before is the 3/4 of the batch the space between the frames would end up right in the middle of the scan so I would get half a frame from one side half a frame from the other.
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
Troy Ammons:

I've never had anything that off, except for when the border of the negs are difficult to distinguish.

I'll keep you up to date on my List mode trial in a day or two.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
Ordered one from B+H so I will know in a week.
If its a dog it goes back.
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
Dizzy Cow:

Ok, well...as an n=1 test, I just ran a roll of 24 exposures via List mode and for whatever reason, it gave me the best registration of each frame out of the many previous rolls run that were on Auto mode.

Not sure why. Maybe just the luck of the draw.

Maybe I'll rescan the same roll in Auto and report back.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
Dizzy Cow:

It would be much appreciated. I hope to be able to run an entire 36 exposure roll through to produce a low rez jpeg "contact sheet".

I'm still testing a couple of rangefinders since it's less expensive to buy an 60's - 70's era entire camera for it's fast, sharp, lens than it is to purchase a lens alone for either my SLR or DSLR. How the heck does that work???

I'm chomping at the bit to take some "pictures that matter" again. Already made the mistake of trying to do so whilst testing. A bad film advance after 22 exposures was disheartening to say the least. The film ripped in two after I was lulled into a false sense of security; I'll never have access to the location again.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
IMO these are the rangefinders I like.

One of the best cheapest sharp good RF I have found the the Minolta AF2. I have 4 of them LOL but no aperture control and not that small.

The Nikon TI 28 and 35 are nice.

The Fuji Natura 24mm is one of the sharpest cameras I have ever used period. I shot a roll of microfilm and scanned it with a Minolta 5400II and had some details that were single rows of pixels which was pretty amazing. Expensize.

The Contax TVS cameras are very sharp.

The Contax T 35 F2.8 is the cream of the crop but very expensive.

I just tried out a Oly Stylus Epic 35mm F2.8 but was not impressed. It was decently sharp but just not at the level I was looking for. Mine could have been a soft copy.
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
optofonik:

My rescan on Auto mode was almost just as good as from the List mode. A few more frames were slightly clipped, but nothing that would get me frowning.

Then again, this roll had distinctive borders from frame to frame, so that could explain why there is little difference in my trials.

I've read somewhere in the Vuescan literature that there is an option to tell the software what the distance is from frame to frame, but I don't see that option coming up when I am running the Primefilm XA.
O p t o f o n i k Posted 5 years ago. Edited by O p t o f o n i k (member) 5 years ago
Testing three cameras right now. QL17 and QL17 GIII (both 40/1.7) in addition to a Yashica GSN (45/1.7). The GIII and GSN tested good enough to take out this weekend for some proper picture taking. Loaded both with Tri-X and D76 is in the post so...

Looking forward to using the tips posted here.
pixel blind 5 years ago
more on XE and XA

The XE does single-pass multi-scanning

The XA does multi-pass multi-scanning

I emailed Ed Hamrick if he could change Vuescan so the XA does multi-pass the same way as the XE. Answer is no. Basically, the multi-pass method is set in firmware and he has no control over the method.

What I have found with Kodachrome slides and multi-pass:

With the XE, I did see some improvement in noise. For me the sweet spot was 4 passes. Since it does single-pass multi-scanning, registration is always spot on since the sensor does not move between scan samples and focus stays sharp, same as a single pass.

With the XA, I do not see improvement in noise with multi-pass. But due to the multi-pass mulit-scanning method, I do see some slight blur in the image. Registration of the multiple passes is just slightly off. Viewing at smaller sizes is not noticable. Starting at about 1:2 viewing ratio, I start to see a slight blur when comparing a single pass to a multi-pass image.

Now comparing noise in the images between the XE and XA, with Vuescan settings similar, an XE image at 4 passes to me look the same as the XA with one pass. also the sharpness between the XE and XA looks the same to me.

If I only had color negatives, I would have kept the XE. Since I have slides, the benifit for me of the XA is higher Dmax and no banding. also, since I am getting similar image IQ with a single pass, scanning slides with the XA is faster than with the XE with 4 passes

Now multi-exposure is done the same way on both: two passes.
I did not see any improvement with multi-exposure. With the XE, registration of the two scans was terrible, so basically unusable. With the XA, registration is very close, so might not be noticable and may be of use to some.
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Thanks for sharing this trial! I've got a roll of Velvia 50 I'm ready to send out for development, so this is all great to know.
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
pixel blind:

Thanks for that. I imagine it will save more than a few such as myself from attempting to use the "multi" features to no avail.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
Testing the XA now and so far so good. A few glitches but nothing major. Lens seems to have some CA but for the $ its pretty nice and it will batch scan. Batch scanning works better than the PI 7250 I had.

I also have a Howtek 4000 dpi drum scanner and used to have a Minolta 5400 II and had scanned some negatives with those scanners so was able to compare.

Its definitely not as sharp as the Minolta 5400 II but I did not expect it to be. That said the 5400II film holders will not hold the film flat enough anyway so if focused in the center the edges will usually fall off to about 4000 dpi equiv unless the film is super flat.

Its not quite as sharp as the Howtek drum scanner at 4000 dpi, but its pretty close. If you are pixel peeping at 300% then the Howtek is a little sharper and cleaner but not so far ahead that its obvious.
delgiudice Posted 5 years ago. Edited by delgiudice (member) 5 years ago
Hi All - I bought a (and I'm back; the Kings won the Stanley Cup as soon as I started typing) XA last weekend and I have been messing around with it all week. I'm using VueScan with a few key techniques that were referred to me by a couple helpful folks in this thread. I shoot street and live music with a Bessa Rangefinder on Tri-X and cheap color film, and I am starting to churn out some very promising results. It has only been a week and I can tell already this thing is miles (MILES) ahead of my V500.

The auto-feeder has been pretty consistent so far and I have even managed to make a couple minor alignment adjustments mid-batch.

Here is one from a roll of UltraMax that I scanned tonight. Light touch up in Aperture; I have yet to even consider a 'look' or 'process' to strive for in post, but it's definitely a start.

BessaR_UMax_June14_R2_36
O p t o f o n i k 5 years ago
delgiudice:

That white -t-shirt is really hot but it still looks "smoother" than digital clipping. I wonder if you could pull out more detail in it or are you getting everything that's there to get?

And man-o-man, what a game. Double overtime and it looked like it could go another. The Kings just kept hammering Lundqvist but it seemed like he was ready for more every time. The Rangers were a worthy opponent tonight; no win for them but certainly no shame.
delgiudice Posted 5 years ago. Edited by delgiudice (member) 5 years ago
Lundqvist has some really unbelievable saves throughout the later half of that game. It was nice to not be attached to either team so I could just take in the spectacle of a great performance.

Anyway, there is still plenty of detail in the original file - I actually bumped up the exposure a bit in post to make that version and it looks like I lose some detail throughout the JPEG conversion/upload to flickr process.

The roll I'm working on this morning has been a bit of a pain. The autofeeder decided to "loosely interpret" the location of frame 15 and threw off the alignment of about 5-6 frames before I caught it. Realigning a frame halfway through a batch scan is a real pain in the ass and I can see this XA going right out the window at some point in time. As a workaround, I cut the roll into thirds and individually scanned the problem section and then kicked it back over to batch scanning. I hate how the VueScan software constantly reverts to frame 1 and the XA doesn't listen to my initial alignment adjustments. I'll tap the Reverse button a couple times; "Ok that's perfect - hit Preview - wwoooooong (realigns roll to the original incorrect framing, starts batch from one) "FFFUUUUUUUU!!!"
Dizzy Cow Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Dizzy Cow (member) 5 years ago
delgiudice:

If you interrupt the scanning to realign, just switch to List mode and then type in the first frame you want to scan and then list the last frame.

For example, to scan frames 15 thru 36, you enter in "`5-36" (without the quotes) and then hit scan again.

In that way, you wouldn't have to start all the way back to frame 1.
Troy Ammons 5 years ago
PI XA scanner.

Anybody having issues with their autofocus ?

Mine seems to default to 2mm all the time no matter what and that is not the sharpest setting. Sharpest is typically around .1mm to .5mm so all my batch scans are soft. Unless I set a manual focus on all scans they are soft.

Does this with Cyberview AF, Silverfast AF and Viewsacn AF so I assume its a firmware issue ?
Dizzy Cow 5 years ago
Troy Ammons:

My auto focus is working fine. Is your scanner trying to compensate for unevenness where you have it targeted to focus?
pixel blind 5 years ago
Troy Ammons:

auto focus is working fine for me.

With Vuescan, input tab, set autofocus to Always. this way it refocus on every scan

www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc28.htm

based on Hamrick's site, you may also want to test some of the other settings.
pixel blind 5 years ago
from the world of Epson scan, the standard process is to adjust input and output black and white points with Epson scan for each scan. with Epson scan is often an iterative process to adjust the black and white points.

for slides, Vuescan has an option that provides a very viable alternative and that is to save as a raw dng file which works well with primefilm XA (and probably XE) and Lightroom. Just use Vuscan to scan, then do all color processing in lightroom. With vuescan on manual save, infra red clean is applied on save.

from Hamrick's site: Raw files contain as much data as the scanner was able to produce before any modifications may have been made

so with raw files, vuescan color setings in the color tab are not applied to the raw file.

raw dng files work much better with lightroom than raw tiff files

So with slides and the XA, preview, adjust crop, single pass scan, save raw dng which is quite fast compared to trying to adjust the image in vuescan. then post process in lightroom.

I do set the output color space to prophoto which lightroom uses. haven't determined if this makes a difference, but I set it anyway
1 3
(201 to 300 of 389 replies)
Groups Beta