Raw & Post Processing, Printing > Digital Image Processing
Silverfast 8 + Nikon 5000 + Kodachrome = scan lines/banding
Mark D Segal:
Oops - that's a very important observation. If two different applications produce the same results it points to the issue being lodged somewhere outside the software. But we'll get into that anon.
SeanPerry:
hi Mark (syncrasy) --
I have seen this happen with black/white film.. makes sense that kodachrome could exhibit it. I think it might only apply to the 8000/9000 but I recall an option to scan with a single line from the CCD on the Nikon software.. it cleared it up as I remember. It was a rare anomaly in my experience. If Silverfast has that option you could try it there...
As to the Nikon software not working on snow leopard, have you tried? I'm not advocating you switch, just curious.
The time you mention I would guess is way too fast, I don't think you are getting true 4000ppi scans in 10 seconds or less.
Last thoughts. Have you tried making a scan with the controls zeroed? Wondering if potential contrast adjust exaggerating edges.
And finally, have you checked the tiffs in another program or other display? I've seen screen previews and redraws do wacky stuff..
I know I'm reaching, sorry to hear of your troubles and good look sir.
all best -- sean
Christoph C. Feldhaim:
You could try Super Fine Scan - it takes more time, but I heared, that banding problems which ocurred with the LS8000 were fixed by some people using SFS mode.
I never had banding problems with my LS9000 so far.
Concerning Silverfast - The new version is a mixed bag.
What is really good, is, that now the IR extraction for the Nikon scanners (finally!) works on windows, but they omitted the analog lamp control, which is bad.
There are also some bugs with the MF film holder for the LS9000 - I'm sure they'll fix it soonish.
syncrasy:
Sean, yes, when I first got my new Mac Pro last year, I tried Nikon Scan immediately because I had read that it wouldn't work on Leopard or Snow Leopard and I wanted to see for myself whether it was true. The software would not launch. I tried for about 30 minutes (fixing permissions, restarting the Mac, relaunching, etc.). It still would not launch. Officially, Nikon says it should not work and is not supported. So I purchased SilverFast.
Today, when I read your post and Christoph's post, I was going to reply, "tried it and it didn't work" and "please see my post above". But I thought, "let me try it again, just for kicks." I tried launching Nikon Scan and, to my disbelief, it launched successfully. Then I scanned two test scans (1x and Super-Fine 8x). They worked! Nikon Scan 4 now works on my Snow Leopard Mac! I don't understand why it now works, but this is very good and unexpected news. The only problem is that Nikon Scan 4 never played well with my slide feeder (it always crashed during batch scans). SilverFast generally plays well with the slide feeder. I'll test Nikon Scan again to see if (somehow) that feature works better.
As for Silverfast 8, my time estimate of "10 seconds" was incorrect. It was a subjective and emotional impression, but I had failed to actually time it. So here are some scan timings and results (all at 4,000 ppi):
* Nikon Scan 4 (16 bit, multiscan Super-Fine 8x): 2 minutes, 15 seconds
* SilverFast 6.6 (48 bit, multiscan 1x): 30 seconds
* SilverFast 6.6 (48 bit, multiscan 8x): 2 minutes, 45 seconds
* SilverFast 8 (48 bit, multi-exposure off): 1 minute
* SilverFast 8 (48 bit, multi-exposure on): 2 minutes
All other settings are "zeroed out" (I always scan "raw" and process in Photoshop later). With multi-scanning, both NikonScan and SilverFast 6.6 produced acceptable images with no apparent scan lines. But SilverFast 8 creates scan lines. The problem is not a matter of previews or redraws. The scan lines are in the image (confirmed by opening in Photoshop and viewing at 100%).
See the attached JPEG. In the SilverFast 8 image on the right, you can see tiny scan lines along the edge of the roof and the roof beam. They make the roof line look jagged.
Mark D Segal:
I hope you labelled the images correctly, because the Nikon Scan image looks the worst of the lot - the sky looks like coarse sandpaper, not the case for the two to the right. As for the two to the right, it made no difference with versus without multi-exposure - which can indeed happen when the deep quarter-tones are just too dense. I wonder about the colour balance of the SilverFast scans. Were you using a scanner profile?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version