monkeyfist
Established
you can actually do a white calibration on the orange mask of the negative, it usually says "white calibration failed", but it still works. Dont know why it says so, but this way the orange mask is eliminated straight in the scanning phase. Also gives a better file with more information. As the white point is closer to where it should be.
If this does not work, just do the conversion manually in PS. Its easy, and you are in control instead of all these automated plugins etc.
docf
Member
Thank you calebarchie for the hint and the manual.
@monkeyfist thank you to for your suggestion. I will try it. What i found out is that with ColorTrio i have to do the conversion in PS because i only get 8 bit file with the negative option on.
I'd been interested in the two methods.
1.Conversion in Ps vs
2.Conversion in ColorQuartet
At the Moment i only can run the scanner under ColorTrio with my Mac.
@monkeyfist thank you to for your suggestion. I will try it. What i found out is that with ColorTrio i have to do the conversion in PS because i only get 8 bit file with the negative option on.
I'd been interested in the two methods.
1.Conversion in Ps vs
2.Conversion in ColorQuartet
At the Moment i only can run the scanner under ColorTrio with my Mac.
docf
Member
Thank you calebarchie for the hint and the manual.
@monkeyfist thank you to for your suggestion. I will try it. What i found out is that with ColorTrio i have to do the conversion in PS because i only get 8 bit file with the negative option on.
I'd been interested in the two methods.
1.Conversion in Ps vs
2.Conversion in ColorQuartet
wich one produces better results.
At the Moment i only can run the scanner under ColorTrio with my Mac.
@monkeyfist thank you to for your suggestion. I will try it. What i found out is that with ColorTrio i have to do the conversion in PS because i only get 8 bit file with the negative option on.
I'd been interested in the two methods.
1.Conversion in Ps vs
2.Conversion in ColorQuartet
wich one produces better results.
At the Moment i only can run the scanner under ColorTrio with my Mac.
James1
Established
Kamph. having just been through a similar process I thoroughly agree with netsoft2k's opinion that the headache will be worth it.
I had an OF120, and I am sure that you find your Scanmate is rather better if you get it tuned in properly
One thing that you (or anyone) consider is whether you want/need to try and get old programmes working on modern machinery.
In other words - I would personallly use the old software to drive the scanner only to produce files with as little adjustment as possible. You'd then transfer them to a modern PC for processing on Photoshop or whatever.
In my case, my scanner's software only works on Mac OS9.2. So what I did was build a dual-boot OS9/OS X (I used Tiger) system on an old G4 Quicksilver where the default save location when using OS9 is the sharing folder of the OS X installation.
It's then trivial to reboot into OS X and transfer the files to my Windows & machine using the much better networking possibilities offered by OS X.
No experience of the Scanmate's software, but old Macs, Windows XP machines and appropriate OSs are easily and cheaply available, and would save a lot of hassle and messing about.
monkeyfist
Established
Kamph. having just been through a similar process I thoroughly agree with netsoft2k's opinion that the headache will be worth it.
I had an OF120, and I am sure that you find your Scanmate is rather better if you get it tuned in properly
One thing that you (or anyone) consider is whether you want/need to try and get old programmes working on modern machinery.
In other words - I would personallly use the old software to drive the scanner only to produce files with as little adjustment as possible. You'd then transfer them to a modern PC for processing on Photoshop or whatever.
In my case, my scanner's software only works on Mac OS9.2. So what I did was build a dual-boot OS9/OS X (I used Tiger) system on an old G4 Quicksilver where the default save location when using OS9 is the sharing folder of the OS X installation.
It's then trivial to reboot into OS X and transfer the files to my Windows & machine using the much better networking possibilities offered by OS X.
No experience of the Scanmate's software, but old Macs, Windows XP machines and appropriate OSs are easily and cheaply available, and would save a lot of hassle and messing about.
The software runs perfectly on 64bit windows. You do not actually need old machines/operating systems. This is one of the nice things about scanmate scanners.
And yes, these scanners are amazing. There is no other way to get large enough scans from film to do inkjets properly. But then again, if you are not into printing.. its just a waste of time. As in digital world, you only need the file size you are going to actually use. Like scanning huge files and then scaling them down and posting in the interwebs, you are just downgrading the quality compared to scanning the file in the size you are actually going to use it.
When it comes to prints, film really outshines digital. If you got a proper scanner.
jzagaja
Well-known
All encoders in Scanmates have eccentric shaft that causes vibration. Can you confirm this cause "wow and flutter" effect?
Kamph
Established
Really appreciate all the great input guys!
The scanner arrived yesterday. Cosmetically speaking the scanner and drum is in great condition although a bit dusty. It came with the ColorQuartet software, dongle, Auto-focus calibration target, tons of manuals and the power cable. I guess next step is to see if it powers up and if it does then source an Adaptec scsi card and perhaps, if money allows it, a mounting station.
EDIT: It powered up with no problems. So far so good.
The scanner arrived yesterday. Cosmetically speaking the scanner and drum is in great condition although a bit dusty. It came with the ColorQuartet software, dongle, Auto-focus calibration target, tons of manuals and the power cable. I guess next step is to see if it powers up and if it does then source an Adaptec scsi card and perhaps, if money allows it, a mounting station.
EDIT: It powered up with no problems. So far so good.
MarinB
Member
Kamph
Established
Succes! Using an Adaptec 2940 card I was able to connect to my scanner from my main computer running windows 7 64 bit. White and auto focus calibration succesful as well. I guess I have a working scanner!
jzagaja
Well-known
This is bulb contacts that need to be cleaned.
MarinB
Member
Kamph
Established
The blue channel on my scanner seems a lot less sharp than the red and green ones. Also I'm seeing some slight CA. Any thoughts?
BTW, where du you get your drum scanner supplies from in Europe? I don't have a mounting station yet unfortunately, so I'm stuck dry mounting for now. Do you prefer a specific kind of tape for this application to other kinds?
BTW, where du you get your drum scanner supplies from in Europe? I don't have a mounting station yet unfortunately, so I'm stuck dry mounting for now. Do you prefer a specific kind of tape for this application to other kinds?
jzagaja
Well-known
Yes these two in the middle and especially on bulb side with sand paper. Clean dichroic filters and fiberglass .
MarinB
Member
With a slightly sanded needle tip? Can a cleaning solution help, and if so, which one? Can I use a bit of silicone grease to reduce heat?
Well, the bulb is brand new. No corrosion or any buildup on its two prongs.
By "fiberglass" do you mean optic fiber cable that transmits light to the scanning head or the above shown contact surface of the ceramic bulb socket?
jzagaja
Well-known
Yes optic fiber cable. If you see corrosion then there will be banding. Only sanding helps.
Anyone tried white laser 25-50mW? There will be less noise in blue channel.
Anyone tried white laser 25-50mW? There will be less noise in blue channel.
MarinB
Member
Done! Used a few toothpicks and there was indeed a bit of corrosion in both socket contacts. Banding is now completely gone. Thanks, Jacek.
Kamph
Established
OK, apparently the blue channel isen't soft after all, it's just that my scanner have a hard time focusing correctly. After several tries I found that changing the focus elevation by +80 would yield very sharp scans when scanning at 2000 dpi, however, changing the dpi to 4000 or 5000 result in soft focus again. What is going on?
jzagaja
Well-known
If you set focus once on drum surface (with marker or transparency) then you shouldn't change in future anything regardless of resolution?
Kamph
Established
That was my understanding as well, Jack. My scans just seemed horribly out of focus, but as it turns out it was human error after all. Sloppy mounting on my part. Scans are now very sharp but shows the same zipper artifacts as seen on page 3 in this thread. Was it possible to maybe fix this through the monitor program?
jzagaja
Well-known
I think edge artifacts are caused by encoder vibrations (eccentricity). When you knock it during scan you'll get one larger visible artifact. This is Scanmate bug. Also try clean encoder. Of course after adjustments do zero point vertical and motor adjust.