Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On a lark (since it's virtually free here in the States with the free film) and against everyone's (at least here) advice, I picked up an RFS 3600. These are my observations so far (and it is still returnable, so I have no vested interest in talking it up as a product). One basic thing that everyone should bear in mind is that this is a high-volume scanner, which means that it is optimized for doing multiple frames. So the time investment for one frame is high, but for 5, 6 or 36 is not. Plusses: - -- it is not as noisy as people say it is. perceptible, yes, but agricultural, no. I use an HP Scanjet IIcx for prints, and that is loud. The AF clicks, but it works remarkably well. - -- the optical quality is pretty impressive - so much so that unsharp masking (and other sharpening) does nothing for the pictures. This impresses me -- most people seem to apply sharpening to their scans, blaming "the scanning process." All types of software sharpening degrade images for printing by making edge halos and pixelation (which in turn interact badly with output). This scanner is one with which you can avoid degradation. - -- the included software is not terrible. It takes 5 minutes to learn, which is considerably less than what is required to learn good photography (or even how to make a passable print). the prescan thing is a little annoying, but you don't have to set there feeding the machine filmstrips while it goes on. The software is very good at calibration, especially with b/w films like TMX. - -- you can make web-quality 12-bit images (600dpi from 1x1.5") in less than 30 seconds apiece, unattended, even with the slower USB connection. - -- did I mention automatic film drive?! This is a giant plus, especially compared to fidgeting with filmstrip holders (how many of you have broken the holders that come with Sprintscan 35s)? Ever wonder why Polaroid sells replacements in packs of six now?). - -- Makes excellent Kodachrome scans, better than anything else I have seen. Kodachrome is the supreme test of a scanner, because it has a huge range and has grain as well. - -- The fine frame adjustment is useful. I have had the experience with the Sprintscans and Nikons that if your camera has close or wide frame spacing, the first neg may be lined up but the last one not. The real gripes: - -- comes with a SCSI cable that is the compact type, not compatible with most SCSI devices (or the Adaptec cards). This leaves you to find an adapter, suffering from slow USB 50mb scans in the meantime. - -- Energy star takes a few minutes to turn the scanner off. - -- needs to look less like an alien pod. My responses to some gripes I've read: - -- Film flatness. Film flatness appears to be the same as with Polaroid filmstrip holders. The bottom line is that a badly curved neg will be curved, no matter what type of scanner you have. For that you need a glass carrier, which very, very few film scanners will take. - -- No digital ICE. Sounds familiar, from a different context). In an earlier day, some people who couldn't be bothered to clean negatives or the glass plates in negative carriers. They got dust spots on their prints (big surprise). The result of this was the development of glassless negative carriers (much inferior in ultimate sharpness) and a huge surge in the same of Spot-tone for dust spotting (which never really works that well). Today, a lot of people rely on ICE to clean up negs, with attendant effects on image degradation. Having tried both, I think the more effective solution is to (1) be careful in processing your negatives and (2) buy a $6 Ilford Antistaticum cloth. That way, you don't start off with a handicap in sharpness. For what is it to gain 4,000 dpi and lose the image quality? Scratches on your negs are a different story, and ICE can help get rid of them, but the more systematic solution is to check you camera's pressure plate for grit, keep your film canisters clean, watch how you load your film reels, and don't ever squeegee a neg. if you use a lab, choose another one. - -- No VueScan support. Somebody said that the scanner was so bad "that Vuescan would not support it." Looking at the list of supported scanners, I can say that VueScan supports some pretty bad scanners and doesn't support some decent ones (Umax, for example). Maybe there will be support one day. Maybe not. I have Vuescan, and while it is a great program from an automation and scanner feature-exploitation with HP flatbeds, I don't see it as a killer app with negative scanners, especially with the advent of Silverfast (now included with the Kodak). Anyway, I am going to slug it out and see if the RFS 3600 is good over a variety of slide/neg and lighting situations. Like anything you buy for imaging, I have discovered that there is no substitute for trying something yourself and shaking it down. If it sucks, back it goes. If it's good, there may be something such as a free lunch. Have a great new year! Dante > From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 19:25:43 +0100 > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] Kodak RFS 3600 > > ...is getting dirt cheap now (<USD 500). Apparantly this wasn't a well > accepted device. I would like the bulk scan feature for uncut film. Any > opinions? > > HP > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html