Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Ok. A new (to me) Flextight 343 showed up last night. Aside from some unholy noises made on first startup, it seems to be running ok. The scans are sharp (although it's a pain to get the holders loaded with 120 film if you are a perfectionist).
BUT
I am getting soft streaking (random width across the frame) in skies in b/w negatives. This seems to be either dust somewhere in the optical path or a CCD calibration need (it's always in the direction of scanning). It affects the areas of low density in the negatives. I suspect more dust, since the streaks are many pixels wide. The easier check is CCD calibration, though, because you don't have to disassemble anything.
BUT
With Flexcolor on the Mac (Retina 5K i7; El Capitan), selecting "CCD Calibration" (and following the directions) causes the program to crash with the message "SetFrame: resolution too low." This happens no matter what resolution is set (300-3,200). Switching to the latest software on a PC (Pentium 4, XP) allows all of the other diagnostic (debg) tests. but the CCD calibration is greyed out.
Any ideas on why this would crash? As to the dust, does anyone have a service manual for this scanner? Should be exceedingly simple to clean the lens assembly, given what I have seen of the 848 - but this does not have exactly the same chassis as its older brothers.
Thanks!
Dante
BUT
I am getting soft streaking (random width across the frame) in skies in b/w negatives. This seems to be either dust somewhere in the optical path or a CCD calibration need (it's always in the direction of scanning). It affects the areas of low density in the negatives. I suspect more dust, since the streaks are many pixels wide. The easier check is CCD calibration, though, because you don't have to disassemble anything.
BUT
With Flexcolor on the Mac (Retina 5K i7; El Capitan), selecting "CCD Calibration" (and following the directions) causes the program to crash with the message "SetFrame: resolution too low." This happens no matter what resolution is set (300-3,200). Switching to the latest software on a PC (Pentium 4, XP) allows all of the other diagnostic (debg) tests. but the CCD calibration is greyed out.
Any ideas on why this would crash? As to the dust, does anyone have a service manual for this scanner? Should be exceedingly simple to clean the lens assembly, given what I have seen of the 848 - but this does not have exactly the same chassis as its older brothers.
Thanks!
Dante
Merlijn53
Established
If this scanner works the same as my Flextight Precission II, you could try taking out the lamps and clean them, also the "socks" around the lamps.
I had what looks like the same problem and it was solved this way.
Regards,
Frank
Btw, I don't know what you mean by unholy noises, but som metalish sound at start up are normal.
I had what looks like the same problem and it was solved this way.
Regards,
Frank
Btw, I don't know what you mean by unholy noises, but som metalish sound at start up are normal.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Thanks Frank - I didn't actually think of that. Some black dust is definitely there under the panel of the light table. I'll check it.
The initial noises were like a clunk and then a banging noise. I didn't have a holder in the machine. I'm guessing if it's like my LS8000, it's just the carriage (or whatever) realigning itself after transport. It only happened once. Other than that, I am shocked at how quiet this thing is. Makes my Nikon sound like a tractor. In fact, the first scan I ran, I thought it wasn't working because it was totally silent.
I'll report back shortly.
Best,
Dante
The initial noises were like a clunk and then a banging noise. I didn't have a holder in the machine. I'm guessing if it's like my LS8000, it's just the carriage (or whatever) realigning itself after transport. It only happened once. Other than that, I am shocked at how quiet this thing is. Makes my Nikon sound like a tractor. In fact, the first scan I ran, I thought it wasn't working because it was totally silent.
I'll report back shortly.
Best,
Dante
Merlijn53
Established
Talking about the holders, be aware, that you enter the holder you are using correctly in the software. I once used the standard 35mm holder (1 verical or 1 horizontal negative) after I used the one for 6 35mm negatives. So the scanner "thought" it was still the longer holder and the holder went all the way inside and I had to open the bottom of the scanner to find it back 
Regards,
Frank
Regards,
Frank
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Looks like that might have worked! The tube was quite dusty (as I guess I should have expected, since it faces straight up), and now the CCD monitor window has nice, smooth lines for R G and B.
and now mostly what I am seeing in scans is streaks on film from my poor agitation technique. :bang:
I am shocked, actually, at how expensive these scanners are. The design is clever, but not much going on inside the box. I guess patents are worth something after all.
Frank, I owe you a Scotch. Or whatever you drink!
Dante
and now mostly what I am seeing in scans is streaks on film from my poor agitation technique. :bang:
I am shocked, actually, at how expensive these scanners are. The design is clever, but not much going on inside the box. I guess patents are worth something after all.
Frank, I owe you a Scotch. Or whatever you drink!
Dante
Merlijn53
Established
Yes, they are expensive, but every part has been thought of and is the best there is and after some 15 years mine is still working and making better scans than cheaper scanners that are sold now.
Regards,
Frank
Regards,
Frank
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Second that. Engineered a little bit like a tank, and I see that aside from the electronics, it's all metal with some rubber for decoration. I do appreciate that the baby 343/photo is a bit smaller, only as wide as the Nikon (which is just as as much of a trooper as anything out there).
If I am out shopping for spare light tubes, do you think that color temperature (6400 vs 5400) makes a lot of difference for b/w negs? Can't imagine why that would not be within bounds for color correction, even for color negs. Also, generic tubes are about $6 apiece, and the sleeve assembly is laughably simple to move from one tube to another. On the 343, there is one tube with openings at 90 degree angles. Piece of cake.
I was laughing with the comment about the 36x24 holder; I was wondering what that could possibly be for - and then the CCD calibration instructions explained it (on screen!).
Dante