Is there any way to install Vuescan as a plug-in to Photoshop 6??? Second question: If so, is it worth doing?
-lee- ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Sun 28 Apr, 2002 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Topic: [filmscanners] Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions > ============================================================ > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:53:18 -0400 > From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > > The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is > > inserted in > > the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual states > > that the film should be loaded emulsion side down. > > Hi Simon, > > At least with the Leafscan 45, you DO load the film into the holder emulsion > side down, AND the holder is placed in the scanner upside down, therefore > emulsion side up...so for the Leaf, what you say makes perfect > sense...except the Leaf has the CCD on the top, and the light source is on > the bottom. I am guessing with the Imacon, the light source is on the top, > and the CCD on the bottom? > > Either way, the emulsion faces the CCD, just like in an enlarger, the > emulsion faces the paper... Check to see if the holder goes in upside down, > which would make both statements you said correct. > > Austin > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: [filmscanners] Installing PS 7 under OS X > =========================================== > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:14:49 -0400 > From: Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > On 4/26/02 9:29 AM, "Simon Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When you install the PS 7 upgrade under OS X, does it in effect install two > > versions, those being the native OS X version and the other being the native > > OS 9.2 version? Also, does it install over the top of PS 6 or should I > > remove PS 6 first? > > I ran the installer CD while booted in OS X (10.1.4). It created one folder > containing a carbonized Photoshop 7 and a carbonized ImageReady 7. These > applications will run in either OS X or OS 9. > > Strangely, I read a report from someone else who claimed that he ended up > with separate OS X and OS 9 applications. I can't explain that. Maybe he > was smoking something and had double vision. Or perhaps that was the design > for some of the beta versions. > > The PS 7 installer creates a new folder - it does not install into the PS 6 > folder, and you should not choose that folder as the install location. I > let OS X application installers use their default locations, usually at top > level in /Applications. This is because many of the updaters are stupid - > they expect to find files in the default location, and fail if they don't. > > I think (altough I am not certain of this) that if you are installing the PS > 7 upgrade product, it will see a pre-exiting PS 6 installation as proof of > prior purchase. Then you only need to enter the new s/n from the PS 7 > product. After installing PS 7, you can delete PS 6. If you delete PS 6 > before installing PS 7, you may need to enter a s/n or mount a CD from an > earlier version. > > -- > Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: [filmscanners] LS-8000ED examples > =================================== > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 18:54:20 +0900 > From: "David J. Littleboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > > "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > The scan was performed with the Nikon glass MF strip holder, 14-bit mode, 4x > sampling, dICE turned on, GEM and ROC off, superfine scan (1 CCD) off, auto > focus and exposure, no other adjustments from defaults. > <<<<<<<<<<< > > How long did that take for the scan? > > Presumably 1x sampling, not superfine (i.e. using all 3 CCDs) would be > faster? How much faster, and how much worse? > > >> http://www.smallevents.com/mousebefore.tif > > Hmm. From French culture to American kitsch. How far the great have > fallen<g>. > > Getting the original close to your result requires a major change to the > blue channel. Moving from consumer digital to scanned film, I've been quite > surprised at the radical color adjustments that are required. I suppose > that's unavoidable? > > David J. Littleboy > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tokyo, Japan > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: [filmscanners] Polaroid SprintScan 120 Film Holders -- questions > ================================================================== > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:48:13 -0500 > From: "James L. Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > Victor, > > With regard to the 35mm carrier, I set the filmstrip in so that the spaci= > ngs are a little > ahead of the support bars. There are "teeth" on the retaining frame that= > will engage into > the perfs as you lower the retainer. The slide the retainer into the loc= > king position, > slowly, until the spacings are aligned with the support bars. > > It gets a bit confusing with the 120 carrier. With Insight, you can sele= > ct the image format > on the Preview tab. Unfortunately, not all 120 format cameras index the f= > ilm consistently > nor accurately. Insight does provide some overscanning to compensate for= > the variances but, > if the camera indexing mechanism gets a little "gummy", the spacings may = > widen beyond > Insight's margins. At that point the camera, or back, may need maintenan= > ce. The frame > spacing on my old Kowa Six's vary from about .125" to .212" and that is p= > retty much within > the scan zone of Insight. Just make sure the first frame is closely crop= > ped to the leading > edge of the carrier. I haven't tried it but there is also an option to s= > can the full strip. > > In VueScan, you can adjust the frame pitch with the "Frame Spacing", on t= > he Device tab. I > use the term "Frame Pitch" because this adjustment seems to be the distan= > ce from the leading > edge of one frame to the leading edge of the next frame. With my experie= > nce, the dimensions > are assumed to be in centimeters. "Frame Offset" defines the lead positio= > n of the frame. You > will have to play around with these setting to get what you need. My bes= > t results were > obtained with a "Frame Offset" setting of -.247 and a "Frame Spacing" of = > 6.25. These > setting may not work for you. > > In SilverFast, there is a button on the image panel that is labeled "6.6"= > =2E this button > toggles the format between 6X6, 6X7, and 6X9. There seems to be ample ov= > erscan to cover > varying spacing. > > Hope this is helpful, > > Jim Sims > > > > Victor Landweber wrote: > > > To the list -- > > > > A few questions about SprintScan 120 film holders: > > > > 1. How can I get 35mm film to stay aligned with the dividers and not sh= > ift > > when I close the 35mm film holder? > > > > 2. Is there a way to get the scanner to recognize the spacing of my 6=D7= > 4.5 > > negatives? My camera spaces the images very differently from that marke= > d on > > the 2=BC film holder. The only solution I've thought up is to select on= > e of > > the other film sizes with the hope that it will include the intended ne= > gative. > > > > 3. Does anyone have any experience in filing out the SprintScan 120 fil= > m > > holders so negatives can be scanned full-frame? Please say how you did = > it, > > and how it's working for you. > > > > I have Polocolor Insight, SilverFast AI 5.5, and VueScan. > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Victor Landweber > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -= > ----------------- > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe fil= > mscanners' > > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message ti= > tle or body > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: [filmscanners] Re: Installing PS 7 under OS X > =============================================== > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:48:25 -0400 > From: Jeff Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > 2002-04-26-23:14:49 Julian Vrieslander: > > I think (altough I am not certain of this) that if you are installing the PS > > 7 upgrade product, it will see a pre-exiting PS 6 installation as proof of > > prior purchase. Then you only need to enter the new s/n from the PS 7 > > product. After installing PS 7, you can delete PS 6. If you delete PS 6 > > before installing PS 7, you may need to enter a s/n or mount a CD from an > > earlier version. > > The former works. I got my PS7 upgrade and installed it onto a new > machine I'd just begin migrating to; seeing no 6.0 in place, it asked > for the 6.0 serial number. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: [filmscanners] Re: LS-8000ED examples > ======================================= > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:13:55 +0200 > From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > David writes: > > > How long did that take for the scan? > > Hmm ... I didn't time it. Maybe 6-7 minutes, I guess. > > > Presumably 1x sampling, not superfine (i.e. > > using all 3 CCDs) would be faster? How much faster, > > and how much worse? > > 1x sampling would probably be nearly four times faster, logically, but I > haven't timed that, either. I don't think it would look much worse. In > fact, I haven't really tried to see the difference between 1x and 4x; I only > use 4x because the scan is still pretty fast, and I used to use it on the > LS-2000. > > > From French culture to American kitsch. How > > far the great have fallen<g>. > > Well, it was a good test subject. Too bad the DOF was so deep, as the > background adds a lot of clutter. > > > Getting the original close to your result requires > > a major change to the blue channel. > > Yes, but all the Nikon scanners I've had tend to produce bluish or > bluish-green scans. I don't know why. The correct usually consists of > boosting red and green and reducing blue. The exact exposure of the film > makes a difference, though, as I'm pretty sure there is a slight color shift > in Provia in underexposed vs. overexposed areas. > > One thing I notice is that the red is not blinding, as it has been in most > of my scans in the past. This means that (1) maybe the exposure I used made > a difference (as far as I can tell, this particular shot just happens to be > perfectly exposed); or (2) Provia 100F has been modified to reduce its > propensity to yield very vivid reds (or the 120 emulsion is actually not the > same as the 135 emulsion); or (3) the LS-8000ED does not emphasize reds, and > previous Nikon scanners did (?). Historically, I've noticed that red is > always almost totally saturated in Veliva and Provia scans--so much so that > when I boost saturation, I usually do it only for the blue and green > channels, otherwise the red will burn holes in the retina. > > > Moving from consumer digital to scanned film, > > I've been quite surprised at the radical color > > adjustments that are required. > > They aren't as radical as they seem. A surprising small shift in the > respective gammas for the three channels corrects the color. > > Also, the film itself tends to shift with exposure. My impression is that > as exposure goes up (at least for Provia), the red goes up and the blue goes > down. However, on the light table, the slide looks exactly like the > _corrected_ version of the scan, so it can't be just the film. Maybe the > scanner itself shifts colors based on exposure. > > > I suppose that's unavoidable? > > I've never obtained a scan that didn't require color correction. Note, > however, that I never try to correct anything in the scanner; I always make > all corrections in Photoshop, and I leave the original scan relatively raw > as it leaves the scanner. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions > ============================================= > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:38:03 +0100 > From: Simon Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > I have been given a Flextight Photo to use for the weekend and I have a > question for any users out there. > > The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is inserted in > the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual states > that the film should be loaded emulsion side down. > > Can anyone tell me the correct way to load the film. I did find one 35mm > Scala slide was consistently out of focus when the emulsion side was down > but was in focus as soon as I changed it to be emulsion side up. Funny > thing is that just about every other image was in focus all the time I have > been doing it emulsion side down. > > One other thing. Is it possible to do a RAW scan. I want to scan some > Delta 100 and send a RAW file into Photoshop so that I can do all the > manipulation myself. > > Thanks. > > Simon > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: LS-8000ED examples > ==================== > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:01:51 +0200 > From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > I've uploaded some more scan examples for any interested parties, scanned > with the Nikon LS-8000ED. > > This is a scan of a Provia 100F transparency, in medium format, 6x6. The > picture was taken with a 150mm lens (equivalent to 90mm on a 35mm camera), > roughly 1/250 at f/5.6 or so, as I recall. The photo was shot handheld. > The location was the Disney Studios Park in Paris. > > The scan was performed with the Nikon glass MF strip holder, 14-bit mode, 4x > sampling, dICE turned on, GEM and ROC off, superfine scan (1 CCD) off, auto > focus and exposure, no other adjustments from defaults. > > The files are as follows: > > http://www.smallevents.com/mousebefore.tif > > ... A reduced-size copy of the raw scan from the scanner. This is a 16-bit > TIFF of about 2 MB; it is identical to the original, apart from being > downsampled to 1/223 of its original size (from 8964 pixels on a side to 600 > pixels). You can see that the entire frame is covered. The blurred stuff > just to the left of the frame itself is just a reflection of the > transparency on the side of the film holder. > > Since this is a TIFF, you won't be able to see it in your browser, but you > can download it and open it in Photoshop. > > http://www.smallevents.com/mouseclose.tif > > ... An original-size excerpt from the original scan, showing detail > resolution. No unsharp masking or anythign done. This part of the photo > was also the original focus point in the photograph itself. > > http://www.smallevents.com/mouseafter.jpg > > The scan after adjustment in Photoshop. Adjustment consisted of changing > the curves to brighten up the scan a bit and to make the color balance match > the original transparency on a light table. The original transparency has > better contrast, but this is the best that can be done for a CRT display. I > also cloned out a tiny spot of Newton's rings in the sky in the original. > > If you want to see how well the scanner holds the shadows, load the TIFF and > crank up the curves in Photoshop; you can see that there is more detail in > the shadows than are normally visible on a CRT. > > Overall it seems to do a pretty good job. > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: Polaroid SprintScan 120 Film Holders -- questions > =================================================== > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:24:47 -0700 > From: Victor Landweber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > To the list -- > > A few questions about SprintScan 120 film holders: > > 1. How can I get 35mm film to stay aligned with the dividers and not shift= > =20 > when I close the 35mm film holder? > > 2. Is there a way to get the scanner to recognize the spacing of my 6=D74.5= > =20 > negatives? My camera spaces the images very differently from that marked on= > =20 > the 2=BC film holder. The only solution I've thought up is to select one of= > =20 > the other film sizes with the hope that it will include the intended= > negative. > > 3. Does anyone have any experience in filing out the SprintScan 120 film=20 > holders so negatives can be scanned full-frame? Please say how you did it,= > =20 > and how it's working for you. > > I have Polocolor Insight, SilverFast AI 5.5, and VueScan. > > Thanks. > > -- Victor Landweber > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: SS4000 with OSX? > ================== > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:30:19 -0400 > From: Martin Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > I have just installed OS X and am using an SS4000 with Silverfast AI. At > the moment I have to revert to OS 9.2 in order to scan. It looks like > Silverfast will in time come out with a version for OS X. If and when it > does, will the SS4000, utilizing a Scusi drive, operate under OS X? > > Martin > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > Topic: Test - please ignore > ====================== > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 06:28:38 +0000 > From: "David -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---------------------------------------- > > Test - please ignore > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body