Re: Vuescan/Photoshop color differences

[Rob Geraghty]

>> Sure you can. For $199  you can get the new MC-7 Spider from Color
>> Vision which is quite a nice, accurate and fast device.
>Wow, that's almost reasonable :) Half what I believed was the entry level,

I believe there's now some really good bundles of the Mc7 and
profiling software, so it's worth checking before getting the
Mc7 on its own.

Regards,
Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site updated - Scan Elite

[bjs]

- Original Message -
From: "Alan Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Majordomo leben.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 6:34 AM
Subject: Group Scan site updated
> with Two more sample scans from Minolta Scan Elite
>

OK, I checked these out and here's my cut for those that don't want to bother
downloading those industrial strength images...



Halloween Slide:

- White point clipped more than one would expect for wp=0.001%.  Better than
Polaroid and Scanwit, not as good as the Canon.  Most noticeably the flash
signature in the blue channel has been clipped badly while fully preserved in
the Canon.

- Noise levels are pretty good.  Better than Scanwit and Polaroid.  Similar to
the Canon although more "clumpy" for some reason.

- Shadow detail as good as the best (ie Polaroid and Canon).  I thought the
Scanwit was a step down from these.

- Grain was good.  Better than the Polaroid and every bit as good as the Canon.

- Sharpness was good (equal to others).

- Color was yet again different.  So 4 scanners and 4 color balances.  Although
nothing that can't be easily corrected.   I thought the Canon and Elite were
the two closest but that is highly subjective.  I based that on the kids skin
not be as red/ruddy as the Polaroid makes them out and the dried corn/hay being
more green than the others make them out (having grown up on a farm I'm not
used to red/orange hay bales...)




Bugcatcher Slide:

- Looked great as do the Scanwit and Canon.

- Better highlight detail than Scanwit, about equal to Canon

- Clipped shadows compared to Canon and Scanwit.

- Butterfly net handle is solid blue while Canon has purple tint.  Scanwit is
inbetween.  Same goes for the hat.   The purple/red direction is more accurate
according to my notes.

- Sharpness and grain was good.

- Noise similar to Canon, better than Scanwit.




Resolution Slide:

- What dpi rating is the Elite?   The resolution slide appears to be a little
over 4000 dpi based on its sizebut the resolution is similar to the Canon
(actually a smidgen worse).   The Polaroid edges them both out by about 10%.




Leaves/Sky Slide (I assume it is a slide...no label...be nice to know what kind
of slide it is too)

- Highlights not as clipped as Polaroid.
- Gamma lower than Polaroid (not a quality thing just an observation, I had to
adjust to match the gammas)
- Grain at same image size is much better than Polaroid
- Polaroid is noticeably sharper (and better than what we saw on the previous
slides so something isn't right with the Polaroid scans in that
departmentthis one is clearly more than 10% better.)
- the subject matter didn't allow meaningful comment on noise or shadow
performance.


Overall, quite a decent showing.  Comparable to the Canon. Better than the
Scanwit
and Polaroid.   Unfortunately, no negatives to compare which is a significant
component and highly variable between scanners so we really don't know its
overall "score".


Cheers,
Byron






The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Rob Geraghty]

Byron wrote:
> Still, there is more going on than this.  The Polaroid scan is heavily
> clipped on highlights.

FWIW I could scan the films on the SS4000 at work for comparison
when the films arrive.  This won't be for some time, however!
That might at least point to whether it was a problem with one
SS4000 or consistent with both.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Nikon LS-30/Vuescan questions (Updated)

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/17/2000 5:55:25 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> "4.2. Noise problem when Digital ICE on
>  Occasionally a strange noise pattern appeared around the edge 
>  of an image when you used Digital ICE. 
>  Now this pattern has been reduced."

This is a different problem they're talking about.  What they're
describing is at the boundary between the slide mount and the
film.  It's not what you're seeing.

What you're seeing is caused by two things:

1) NikonScan smooths the image when using ICE.  You
   actually lose image detail when this is turned on.  Use
   VueScan's "Scrub" filter to do smoothing (in 6.1).

2) NikonScan gets a color shift when using ICE.  Compare
   the colors both with and without ICE in NikonScan, and
   with cleaning on and off in VueScan.  You'll see that there
   are big color shifts in NikonScan and no color shifts in
   VueScan.

The noise you're seeing is the same in VueScan both with
and without cleaning.  It's just normal film grain.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Silverfast IT8 calibration

[David Gordon]

on 17/9/00 8:33 pm, John Mahany wrote:

> The Polaroid SS4k scanner is supplied with a film strip carrier which holds 6
> negatives or a slide carrier holding 4 slides.  I can find no way in
> SilverFast of defining which slide to scan.  Can it only scan the first slide
> on the carrier?
> 
on 17/9/00 11:58 pm, ILyons wrote:>
> READ the tutorials at my site. They tell you the answer to both questions, as
> does the manual on the cdrom.

The poor user interface of Silverfast is it's most annoying feature. I had
the same problem as John when I tried the demo. I don't expect to have to
read the manual (Silverfast's second most annoying feature) to work out the
most basic stuff. Polaroid's Insight shows how to do it properly.

The "icon" you need is the one which looks like a grid in the scan window.
Clicking that runs the film holder through the scanner and does a preview of
each frame. You can then click the image you want to scan as a proper
preview. You don't have to wait for the thumbnails though, if you know you
want frame 3, you can click it before Silverfast has done the strip.

Which is a stupid way of going about the process.

For your next assignment, see if you can find the highlight and shadow
droppers!

I've always been suspicious of software which does not follow user interface
guidelines. Generally it's software which was written for DOS or Windows and
ported to Mac OS by someone who never used a Mac. Silverfast gives that
impression. Not only do you have to struggle to learn to use an immensely
powerful program but you have to learn the stupid way Silverfast does
things, making the whole process very frustrating.

I hope Lasersoft are working on bringing Silverfast up to Mac OS X standard,
otherwise I'll be using Insight for everything.

BTW Insight is 100% better for scanning negs.


David Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: what's the best method to scan B&W negs

[Hersch Nitikman]

Are we still talking only of B&W, or have we wandered off the subject title?
Hersch

At 12:27 AM 09/18/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > > But the fact is, there is really no such thing as linear...especially
>in
> > >A/D converters, but no need to go there in this discussion.
> > >
> > A/D converters can be as linear as you want to take the  trouble to make
> > them.
>
>Well, not exactly.  You can correct them as much as you 'take the trouble'
>to, but the A/D converter, and sensor, and analog filter etc. is quite
>non-linear.
>
> > I don't know about scanner A/D converters, but I know that with these
> > converters in general, it is not true that the LSB is always off.
> > It can
> > easily be located between the bits on either side, which is what is
> > important in scanning.  I believe that since you are likely to apply
>gamma
> > correction anyway, being exactly linear is not as important as making
>sure
> > each step from level to level is roughly constant.
>
>Your accuracy is always 1/2 LSB, at best, period.  That is one reason to
>use higher bit converters, then only use the MSBs from it...you get higher
>accuracy...and you can also re-map (do digital gain and offset on the high
>bit data) and take only a particular range from them, and not degrade the
>data.
>
> >>> Drum scanners and CCD scanners which use analogue shaping of the
>voltage
> >>> to a non-linear gamma function upstream of the ADC aren't constrained
> >like this, as much wider ratios can be compressed to fit within the bit
>depth.
> >>
> >>This can be done in the digital domain (after the ADC).  I can't imagine
> >>why anyone would want to do that in the analog domain.  Who does that?
>
> > It is too late to apply these corrections if you wait until you are in
>the
> > digital domain.  At that point you are limited to the compromises in the
> > scaling and digitizing that have already been made.   To scale the film
> > range to the A/D converter range, you need to do this analog.  Otherwise
> > you are either throwing away data from the film (clipping) or losing S/N
> > because you did not use the full range of the A/D.
>
>Not true.  There are three basic errors in an A/D system.  Gain, offset and
>linearity.  You can correct for gain and offset very easily in the analog
>domain, and that is what you are doing when you adjust the sensor output
>voltage range to the input voltage range of the A/D.
>
>BUT the post (above) said 'analogue shaping of the voltage', which is
>linearity.  Gain and offset do not really 'shape' the voltage.  Both are
>constant for a given 'image'.  These also require D/As to do in the analog
>domain.  Only linearity correction 'shapes' the voltage.  You can not do
>linearity correction very well in analog.  It is cumbersome to design N
>band pass filters, where N is the number of ranges you have in your system.
>  This is FAR easier to do linearity correction in the digital domain, since
>it is just a simple LUT (look up table) that is fully programmable.
>
>
>
>The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
>To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE 
>FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are 
>reading the Digest.




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: how does the mailing list work?

[Tony Sleep]

> I imagine there's a place with all the letters to this list so people
> can browse them, but I don't know how to get there. Please could someone
> tell me how does this work?

You will notice your mailbox filling up with them:)

> 
> The question I'd like to know is as follows. I normally take pics with
> slide film and I'm thinking on buying a film scanner to print them on an
> Epson Stylus 1520. I'd like to know how does this compare to prints
> taken to the photolab, what is the size you can enlarge them with a
> reasonable quality etc.

AFAICR now the 1520 was the A3 format 720dpi 3-colour precursor to the 
1200? Prints will seem rather gritty. An upgrade to the 1200 or 1270 would 
make a big improvement, comparable to C41. In some ways better.

A competent 2700ppi filmscanner is just about good enough for A3.


Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Tony Sleep]

>  I occasionally get
> varying results with my scanner scanning the same slide twice with the
> same version of Vuescan after having made NO CHANGES in any settings. 

IME Vuescan is quite sensitive to accurate positioning of the film 
relative to the cropping marquee. Any variations here can affect exposure 
quite considerably, and white point, especially with the Pol4000 whose 
strip carrier does not entirely mask the rebate around the frame on the 
long sides. No criticism of either intended, just a requirement for care 
on the part of the user.


> I am also skeptical of well controlled hardware specific comparisons. 
> They might isolate some specific differences.  However a scan is an
> integration of the image, hardware capability, software capability,
> computer setup, power setup and user expertise. An optimum setup in one
> system may not be an optimum setup in another system.

Absolutely, and...

> Vuescan may bring out the best in scanner A, SilverFast may bring out
> the best in scanner B and the manufacturers software may bring out the
> best in scanner C.  So using the same software  may not be the best way
> to compare.

...it's worse than that. The optimum combination can change from frame to 
frame off the same roll, depending on lighting conditions and exposure.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Melba's Mail]

Alan,
So you are not impressed with the SS4000 at all? Melba



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: labelling archive cdrs

[Jonathan Buzzard]

Alan Tyson wrote:
[SNIP] 
> 
> Speaking as a chemist, I'd say we need a pen that won't
> dissolve the lacquer layer (if present) on the non-playing
> side of the CD, and then won't attack the metallic
> reflective layer if it gets that far. If the layer is gold
> or silver it will be remarkably robust, chemically speaking,
> so I'm a bit bemused as to why any old marker pen won't do.
> Remember that all the data is in the bottom (non-label side)
> of the CD, inside thick layers of polycarbonate with a
> metallic reflective layer between it and the top (label)
> surface.

You could not be further from the truth. The data on any CD
is just below the lacquer layer. If you not believe me
take a dud or blank CDR and snap it in two (in a bin is a 
good idea as the polycarbonate flies everywhere). You will see
the datasurface peel off in thin flakes with the lacquer
layer.

Pressed CD are stamped in polycarbonate, the aluminium or gold
is evaporated on to the disk, and then the aluminium/gold is
covered in lacquer and printed on.

This is why you need to be carefull what you use to write on
the CD with. Ball point pens are a very silly idea, and anything
that will damage the lacquer layer is not good. You need to
use a waterbased ink with a dye/pigment that will not attack
the lacquer layer.

If you are worried write on the inside rim of the disk.

JAB.

-- 
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Sunderland, U.K.Tel: +44(0)191-5153447


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: AC/DC Adapters for Scanners.

[Jonathan Buzzard]

Derek Clarke wrote:
> 
> It all depends.
> 
> Many items are manufactured to work perfectly well with unregulated DC
> supplies as the regulation circuitry is in the unit itself.
> 
> Switch mode power supplies are generally only used for high current
> applications where the required transformer would be very large in a
> conventional smoothed and regulated PSU.

Or you want a small size.
 
> 230-300W PC power supplies are always switch mode because they have to
> deliver some very large currents.

Maplin do a nice range of switched mode power bricks now, that are nice
and compact.

> I'd not expect the average power brick to offer a regulated supply
> however as the current demands aren't that high, and conventional
> unregulated transformer/rectifier combos are much cheaper.

Maplin again do a range of regulated power bricks as well, three
pin power regulators are dirt cheap these days.
 

-- 
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Sunderland, U.K.Tel: +44(0)191-5153447


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Arthur Entlich]

bjs wrote:
> 
  So the question is:  Does
> the Polaroid occasionally mess up its exposure setting and is this a Vuescan
> bug or a firmware bug (assuming Vuescan is calling a firmware auto exposure and
> not setting it on its own).  Or simply an unexplained anomaly?   Beats me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Byron

I have no idea how Vuescan is programmed, but I was wondering, since
VueScan 'recognizes" which scanner it is attached to, isn't it possible
that the program "routes" the scanner data differently, or uses a
different set of adjustments based upon the scanner involved, in which
case, that supposedly "removed variable" of software, would once again
be back into the equation...?

Art




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: A new conflict

[Arthur Entlich]

Tony Sleep wrote:
> 
> > I have the same card, no photoshop and such and it also shows up through
> > vuescan followed by photoedits, where after
> > at-first-sight-not-so-ridiculous
> > sharpening I get magenta pixels in otherwise whitish skies.
> 
> If from colour neg, this is characteristic of CCD noise (= inverted green
> channel noise). You may find some yellow too (inverted blue). If so, that
> would pretty much nail it.
> 
> Vuescan seems to usually get more out of the shadows (on slides), but the
> risk is of also acquiring more CCD noise.
> 

What I am experiencing is not noise, it is some weird posterization in
lighter areas (from slides or negs) which only occurs in 16 bit/channel
scans after I do levels adjustments in Photoshop.

After I told Diamond that using the generic nVidia Riva TNT drivers did
not resolve my problem, then sent me the "form email" message about
upgrades to newer video cards.  In other words, they've decided they
don't want to spend any more time on the issue with me, but they'll
willingly take some more money to provide me with another one of their
cards, which might have the exact same problem (if indeed it turns out
to be their card or drivers at fault, which I still haven't verified).

Yeap, on the good old merry-go-round again.

Art




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Arthur Entlich]

"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
> 
> I have been watching with interest with interest and a little apprehension
> this project. Now that you have gotten to the SS4000 I will voice my concern
> regarding some results and conclusions.
> I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various levels of
> knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control. The best example of this
> is Tony Sleep's experience in his scanner testing effort. When he started he
> had users send him scans of a Q60 target and based his results on those
> scans. When he reviewed the SS4000 I was very insistent he base his review
> on him doing the scans himself. I had our UK office send him a SS4000 from
> inventory so he could have a total "out of box" expierience. The results
> were different from what he had seen in the supplied scan. He was also able
> to investigate he saw.
> I think the ongoing "anti-aliasing" thread is a good example. The originator
> of the thread though he was seeing silver grains when in fact he was not.
> As I am from a manufacturer I am/was a litle apprehensive in writing this.
> Hope you will not think it is "sour grapes". Give the level of control I
> think you need to be very carefull in the conclusions drawn.
> David Hemingway
> Polaroid Corporation
> 


"Houston, we have a problem"  (for those non-North Americans, or
non-space exploration followers, this refers to a comment made by an
astronaut during an Apollo mission, to NASA'a Houston Texas location.)

The problem is this.  For years now, Phil Lippencott has been attempting
to get the scanner industry to agree upon a set of objective tests of
their scanners, so that the results could be fairly evaluated in a
"level playing field", even by dodos like us, who have a fairly minimal
understanding of how scanners really operate.

The industry turned its collective noise up to Phil's suggestions, and
so we, the clients and ultimate purchasers of these products have been
left with having to devise our own clumsy methodologies for coming up
with a way to get some degree of "objective" comparisons of these
products.

Lord knows, the manufacturers sure aren't giving us the straight goods
about their products.  They play with every test result they can
attempting to best the competition.

As much as I respect Polaroid as a company, if indeed the problem is
Polaroid's reputation being misconstrued, due to inaccurate test results
done by amateurs, then perhaps it is incumbent upon Polaroid to lead the
battle in coming up with solid tests which can be objectified so no one
"cheats" in the industry, to stop the misrepresentation which is going
on among them.

Just my thoughts,

Art




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: LeafScan 45...

[Andrew Rodney]

on 9/17/00 6:41 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Does anyone know if the bulb is a special custom bulb made just for this
> scanner, or if it is a bulb that can be bought commercially elsewhere?

I'm 99% sure it's custom. I had to purchase mine directly from Leaf when I
had the scanner. Cost was about $150.

Andrew Rodney 



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: determining scanner's native gamut

[Rob Geraghty]

=shAf= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding Nikonscan and CMS=off, I have to wonder if the Nikon
> programmers didn't assume ... if I was previewing the scan in monitor
> space, and wanted the resulting scan to look like the preview, then
> they "smashed" the scanner's native gamut which is why the scans
> apparently look best in sRGB(?)

They look best in sRGB set where - in Nikonscan?

> Can I ask you ... if you were to open one of your VS "raw" scans
> into a variety of PS color spaces, which one looks best?

If I *had* PS 5.5 I'd love to but I don't. :(  Another reason for saving
raw scans - I can pick the best colour space later when I *do*
get PS (probably 6).

But the main point is that I don't use the raw scans for anything other
than feeding vuescan - as was intended by Ed.

Rob




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Colour shifts with filters (was Re: Nikon LS-30/Vuescan questions (Updated))

[Rob Geraghty]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) NikonScan smooths the image when using ICE.  You
>actually lose image detail when this is turned on.  Use
>VueScan's "Scrub" filter to do smoothing (in 6.1).

As it happens, I was looking at several different crops I made
from the same raw data file this evening.  The vuescan dust
removal filters do indeed progressively defocus the image.
This in turn masks the aliasing.

>with cleaning on and off in VueScan.  You'll see that there
>are big color shifts in NikonScan and no color shifts in
>VueScan.

The weird thing is that in the comparison I mentioned above,
I noticed colour shifts - at least shifts in brightness - even though
the only thing I did between each scan was change the filter
selected.

I don't think the shifts are a real problem, but something is going
on.  However, what I *did* want to say is that vuescan's cleaning
filters offer a method of reducing grain by slightly defocussing
the image.  I tried comparing no filter with the same image
after the scrub filter followed by unsharp masking in PSP.
The image with unsharp masking was of similar focus to the
unfiltered image, but with the advantage of less grain.

The attached jpeg shows the result of the different filters at 1:1
2700dpi from the LS30.  The film is Konica 100VX.  If you
really *like* grain, try the sharpen filter! :)

The image is a section of Bob Murphy's suggested target,
photographed at 2m using a Pentax MZ5 with a Sigma
28-80 zoom lens at 28mm.  F6.7,1/90s, +1EV.

Rob

PS Yes, I realise it's not perfectly straight, however I didn't
want to introduce more errors by rotating it!



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
 konica filtered.jpg

RE: determining scanner's native gamut

[Bond, Alistair]

shAF wrote:

>> How do you designate "raw" with Vuescan?
>> My most recent trials with v.6.0 and v.6.1
>> insist I choose a color space(?)  I haven't yet
>>figured out how to defeat it(?)

Rob replied:

> Select the "output raw scan" option in the output tab.
> Even if "adobe RGB" or "PhotoCD" is selected, it only
> affect the crop file NOT the raw data. The raw data
> file will be bigger than the crop, especially if
> RGBI is selected on the Nikon LS30/LS2000.

I'm not entirely convinced here.  I believe Vuescan does make some 
adjustments to the raw scan based on its calibration of the scanner 
and its understanding of the generic scanner space, which might in 
turn make using the manufacturer's profile problematic.  The Minolta 
software for my Elite allows the output of 16 bit raw data (and also 
ships with a corresponding profile so this data can be easily 
converted into the working space in Photoshop).  I scanned a slide and 
created raw data files with both Vuescan and the Minolta software and 
then applied the profile to these in PS.  The converted Minolta scan 
had much truer colour than the Vuescan one.  I even tried deleting the 
Vuescan calibration file and re-scanning without any calibration and 
then after re-calibrating.  No change.  This seems to hold true for 
all the slides I have scanned.  (Incidentally, using the raw data and 
profile for slides also seems to work better than getting Vuescan to 
crop/convert it into the working space.)

I know that Ed has used the same basic configuration for both the Scan 
Speed and Scan Elite scanners -since they are physically nearly 
identical apart from the IR channel and use the same SCSI commands - 
but this makes me wonder whether they really are that close.  (Or 
alternatively, the output from the Scan Speed used as the basis for 
Vuescan perhaps wasn't representative for some reason.)

I also tried the same with negs.  Although the raw scans were clearly 
different, when Vuescan did its magic on the crops, they were almost 
indistinguishable from each other.  So it looks like some colour 
anomalies/shifts that might show up in slides are removed by Vuescans 
neg correction algorithms.




Al Bond



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: VueScan and Minolta Scan Dual II

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 9:55:16 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Ed, have you looked through:
>  http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/
>  
>  particularly:
>  the driver development kit:
>  http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/download.htm
>  
>  the technote "writing a USB driver"
>  
http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/USBDriverTechnote/USBDriversTechnote.
> html

I've spent at least 8 hours reading this stuff.  I figure I could
get it working with a few man-months of work.  I'm not going
to put several man-months into this.

All I need is a routine that I can call to send an arbitrary buffer
to an arbitrary USB endpoint.  If someone produces this
routine for me, I'll have Macintosh support for the USB working
the next day.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

VueScan and ScanMaker 5

[EdHamrick]

Does anyone have a Microtek ScanMaker 5
that they can do a test with?  I've gotten a report
that VueScan 6.1 works with the ScanMaker 5
in 24-bit mode, but not in 48-bit mode, but the
person who did the test is away for a week.

It would be helpful if someone with one of these
scanners could turn on "Options|Output log file",
do a 25-pixel wide scan, and then e-mail the
vuescan.log file to me.  (25 pixels is needed
because the log file only holds the first 256
bytes of each scsi command).

Thanks,
Ed Hamrick 


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: determining scanner's native gamut

[shAf]

Alistair writes ...

> Rob replied:
>
> > Select the "output raw scan" option in the output tab.
> > Even if "adobe RGB" or "PhotoCD" is selected, it only
> > affect the crop file NOT the raw data. The raw data
> > file will be bigger than the crop, especially if
> > RGBI is selected on the Nikon LS30/LS2000.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced here.  I believe Vuescan does make some
> adjustments to the raw scan based on its calibration of the scanner
> and its understanding of the generic scanner space, which might in
> turn make using the manufacturer's profile problematic.
> ...

I haven't yet delivered a raw scan different from each other, but
I've only been poking with value settings I believe are part of the
crop.  For example, I'm ending up with (after a conversion from "raw"
to AdobeRGB, via the previously mentioned Nikon LUT-type ICMs as the
"from" profile) too-blue/too-little-green neutral graytones (i.e., the
Q60 gray scale and border).  I thought I might fix this with some of
Vuescan's whitepoint and blackpoint options, but no ... same raw scan.
I can instead do the same thing in Photoshop and get good results, but
I'd rather find a way to tweak Vuescan up front while using a Q60, and
then start from there for "real-world" stuff.  It would be inetersting
to hear from ED regarding exactly what can be done to alter the "raw"
output.
I have a feeling if I find a good default mode for the LS-2000 and
Vuescan, and if Ed adds wide-gamut profiles to the list, I'll be
entirely satisfied.  It would also be interesting to hear from Ed
regarding just how wide he feels these scanner gamuts are.  I could be
trying to put "1 liter" inside a "2 liter container" just for the sake
of storage(?) ... and therefore Vuescan's options for color spaces may
be entirely adequate.

cheerios ... shAf  :o)



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Hemingway, David J]

Arthur,
I don't think it is as much an issue of manufacturers "misrepresentation" as
much as it is we just don't talk to each other. I know Polaroid is usually
conservative in their specs, much to the consternation of our sales folks. A
good example of this is the OD spec. In side by side lab comparisons with a
competitors scanner spec'd at 3.6 we are statistically the same and we spec
at 3.4.
I just don't think it is an "evil empire" kind of thing.
Phil has very good connections with some of the higher end scanner companies
and I am not aware of them trying to force the issue. At least for film
scanners it may be it is a relatively small industry.
David

-Original Message-
From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans




"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
> 
> I have been watching with interest with interest and a little apprehension
> this project. Now that you have gotten to the SS4000 I will voice my
concern
> regarding some results and conclusions.
> I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various levels of
> knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control. The best example of
this
> is Tony Sleep's experience in his scanner testing effort. When he started
he
> had users send him scans of a Q60 target and based his results on those
> scans. When he reviewed the SS4000 I was very insistent he base his review
> on him doing the scans himself. I had our UK office send him a SS4000 from
> inventory so he could have a total "out of box" expierience. The results
> were different from what he had seen in the supplied scan. He was also
able
> to investigate he saw.
> I think the ongoing "anti-aliasing" thread is a good example. The
originator
> of the thread though he was seeing silver grains when in fact he was not.
> As I am from a manufacturer I am/was a litle apprehensive in writing this.
> Hope you will not think it is "sour grapes". Give the level of control I
> think you need to be very carefull in the conclusions drawn.
> David Hemingway
> Polaroid Corporation
> 


"Houston, we have a problem"  (for those non-North Americans, or
non-space exploration followers, this refers to a comment made by an
astronaut during an Apollo mission, to NASA'a Houston Texas location.)

The problem is this.  For years now, Phil Lippencott has been attempting
to get the scanner industry to agree upon a set of objective tests of
their scanners, so that the results could be fairly evaluated in a
"level playing field", even by dodos like us, who have a fairly minimal
understanding of how scanners really operate.

The industry turned its collective noise up to Phil's suggestions, and
so we, the clients and ultimate purchasers of these products have been
left with having to devise our own clumsy methodologies for coming up
with a way to get some degree of "objective" comparisons of these
products.

Lord knows, the manufacturers sure aren't giving us the straight goods
about their products.  They play with every test result they can
attempting to best the competition.

As much as I respect Polaroid as a company, if indeed the problem is
Polaroid's reputation being misconstrued, due to inaccurate test results
done by amateurs, then perhaps it is incumbent upon Polaroid to lead the
battle in coming up with solid tests which can be objectified so no one
"cheats" in the industry, to stop the misrepresentation which is going
on among them.

Just my thoughts,

Art




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS
in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the
Digest.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: determining scanner's native gamut

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 8:58:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I believe Vuescan does make some 
>  adjustments to the raw scan based on its calibration of the scanner 
>  and its understanding of the generic scanner space, which might in 
>  turn make using the manufacturer's profile problematic. 

No, the raw scan is pure, unadulterated data straight from
the CCD.  On some scanners there's a multiplier applied
to each CCD position to adjust for uneven lighting and
different CCD sensitivity, but in no case is there any
mixing of the red, green, and blue channels.

> The converted Minolta scan 
> had much truer colour than the Vuescan one.

The Minolta data might not be raw, but might instead
be gamma corrected.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Colour shifts with filters (was Re: Nikon LS-30/Vuesc

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 8:58:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> The attached jpeg shows the result of the different filters at 1:1
>  2700dpi from the LS30.  The film is Konica 100VX.  If you
>  really *like* grain, try the sharpen filter! :)

The reason you don't see much difference between no filter
and the clean filter is that the clean filter only does smoothing
in the neighborhood of dust spots.  The Scrub and Scour
filters do smoothing around all pixels regardless of how close
the pixel is to a dust spot.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?

[Mikkel Høj]

Trying to speed up the process of post-scanning manipulation I have found no 
image deterioration then downsampling from 4000 dpi to 3000 dpi in PhotoShop 
5.5. 
That makes the file shrink from 120 Mb to 70 Mb in 16 bit mode. 
I have made the tests on tripod with Velvia and the even better Provia 100F 
using a near-Leica quality lens.
As a side effect the almost invisible ‘grain’ of these two films will 
pleasantly have been evened out by the downsampling. So this produce a slightly 
different effect of the Unsharp Mask. Neither better nor worse.
Off cause this will all be tripod-lens-film-scanner dependent. And I use a 
Microtek 4000t.
In conclusion I can say that the best quality image I can get from a 35 mm 
corresponds with 3000 ppi/70 Mb in 16 bit mode. 
Comments?
 
- Mikkel 
 


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
ÝÝÑe filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Shawn Coggins]

It has been mentioned in passing the operator experience plays a large
factor in these tests. I know looking back at my early b&w scans done
on a Polaroid 35+ before PolaColor came out on a PC. The results were
pretty grim. After a year of struggling moved the scanner over to a
MAC got one of the earlier versions of PolaColor (never tried ViewScan
as I couldn't image working without a preview) The quality of the
Output results jumped dramatically. 

One of the reasons for the jump was I got a ColorTron II to calibrate
my monitor & upgraded to PS 5 with its color controls.

If these images are scanned into PS with the monitor improperly
calibrated on one system you will see terrible results.

However since the repair costs for my  Polaroid = the price of a new
Canon it does have me thinking about options. At some point I need to
get a scanner to handle my 6x7 film. 

If Polaroid wants to send me a 4000 to test :) I'd be happy to scan in
these targets. 


On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:51 +0100 (BST), you wrote:

>I was going to sit this one out and watch what happened, but (since it's 
>what I use) the conclusions that are being formulated about the 
>Pol4000+Vuescan mostly do not accord with my experience. The picture is 
>emerging of a scanner which blows highlights, isn't particularly sharp, 
>and produces significant amounts of CCD noise. Something is wrong 
>somewhere. 

snip

>2. The Pol4000 is inherently as sharp as the pixel resolution allows. 
Shawn Coggins  http://www.herronparkhorsetrials.org/


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: determining scanner's native gamut

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 12:12:27 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Not sure what you mean "mixing of the red, green, and blue channels"

It means that the value of the CCD voltage for a color doesn't have
_any_ impact on the final digital value of the other two colors.  For
instance, a pixel that's 100% red, 0% green, and 0% blue coming
out of the CCD will be X% red, 0% green, and 0% blue in final form.

>  ... but does your response "some scanners [can use] a multiplier"
>  imply the raw scan be altered??  If so, which scanners??? (Nikon
>  LS-2000?)

Every scanner I know of does this calibration function.  The light in
the middle of the film is usually 20% brighter than the light at
the edges.  The intensity calibration takes care of this.

VueScan uses the same post-calibration data that all other
scanners use - this is what I refer to as raw data.

It's sometimes possible to get the pre-calibration data out of
a scanner, but you really have to work at it.  None of the
scanners I've reverse-engineered do this.

Don't confuse the intensity calibration with the color calibration,
which is an entirely different thing.  Intensity calibration has
no mixing of the colors (i.e. there's no 3x3 matrix multiplication)
while color calibration mixes the colors (i.e. applies a 3x3
matrix multiplication).

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: A new conflict

[Shawn Coggins]

If your going to get a new card for a PC I'd recommend a Matrox. I've
used them for years with Photoshop starting with V3. Matrox is vry
aggresive in driver updates. 


On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:07:13 -0700, you wrote:

>
>
>Tony Sleep wrote:
>> 
>> > I have the same card, no photoshop and such and it also shows up through
>> > vuescan followed by photoedits, where after
>> > at-first-sight-not-so-ridiculous
>> > sharpening I get magenta pixels in otherwise whitish skies.
>> 
>> If from colour neg, this is characteristic of CCD noise (= inverted green
>> channel noise). You may find some yellow too (inverted blue). If so, that
>> would pretty much nail it.
>> 
>> Vuescan seems to usually get more out of the shadows (on slides), but the
>> risk is of also acquiring more CCD noise.
>> 
>
>What I am experiencing is not noise, it is some weird posterization in
>lighter areas (from slides or negs) which only occurs in 16 bit/channel
>scans after I do levels adjustments in Photoshop.
>
>After I told Diamond that using the generic nVidia Riva TNT drivers did
>not resolve my problem, then sent me the "form email" message about
>upgrades to newer video cards.  In other words, they've decided they
>don't want to spend any more time on the issue with me, but they'll
>willingly take some more money to provide me with another one of their
>cards, which might have the exact same problem (if indeed it turns out
>to be their card or drivers at fault, which I still haven't verified).
>
>Yeap, on the good old merry-go-round again.
>
>Art
>
>
>
>
>The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
>To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
>title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Shawn Coggins  http://www.herronparkhorsetrials.org/


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: how does the mailing list work?

[Tony Sleep]

> PS The output from the 1270 on Epson Premium Glossy paper is awesome,
> but there is a problem with prints getting an orange cast over time.

Yes, I know, but it seems to be a minority problem. However you're quite 
right to warn about it.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?

[bjs]

- Original Message -
From: Mikkel Høj
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:17 AM
Subject: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?


>  Trying to speed up the process of post-scanning manipulation I have found no
image
>  deterioration then downsampling from 4000 dpi to 3000 dpi in PhotoShop 5.5.
> I have made the tests on tripod with Velvia and the even better Provia 100F
using a
> near-Leica quality lens.


If downsampled 3000 dpi looks the same as 4000 dpi when viewed at full
resolution on screen, then your scanner isn't providing any image detail beyond
4000 dpi (just extra pixels).   If that is true, your approach is reasonable.

The jury is out on whether the Polaroid/Microtek really does have higher detail
than 3000 dpi based on the group scan results.

Perhaps you can post a crop of a highly detailed section (where you can see
more detail on the slide than in the scan) and show us the 3000 dpi and 4000
dpi results.  This will tell us if the unit really does have detail above 3000
dpi.

Cheers,
Byron




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Dimage Scan Dual II

[YvesBeri]

I am interested in any experience or opinions on this scanner, which looks 
like a substantial upgrade from the original Dual.  

Comparison with Canoscan 2710?  I have seen the tech specs, which look pretty 
similar.  I have not seen much on the Minolta products here; are they 
unpopular for some reasons?

Thanks.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[ILyons]

> I was going to sit this one out and watch what happened, but (since it's
> what I use) the conclusions that are being formulated about the
> Pol4000+Vuescan mostly do not accord with my experience. The picture is
> emerging of a scanner which blows highlights, isn't particularly sharp,
> and produces significant amounts of CCD noise. Something is wrong
> somewhere. 



Like Tony, David and I dare say a few others I have kept quiet about this
series of tests. 


I have no dispute with the concept and aims of the experiment, but much that
has been written is clearly erroneous, worse still it is being circulated to
a much wider audience than the members of this list. It is for this reason
that I decided to comment.

Alan and Co are free to write what they please and publish where and how
they see it, but they also have a "duty" to ensure that what is written is
accurate. The protocol says at approx. 1 meg jpeg. Only the SS4000 exceeds
this, some don't even manage 400kbyte. So the images we view don't even
satisfy your own criteria, yet you (and expect others) make judgement calls
on these scanners that could potentially effect sales.

Frankly, I find it quiet unbelievable that anyone would be so fool hardy as
to agree with Byrons comments regarding the softness of the SS4000 Halloween
scan given that it was clearly reversed (thankfully nobody appears to have
done so, there is hope afterall).

In fact if anything I doubt anything Byron wrote (even the bits that were
correct) will have any credibility given such a fundamental error of
judgement. I can see no plausible excuse for said image even getting to the
web site for display. Alan you own the negative you should know better.

The comment regarding noise in the hat rim is equally incorrect, had Byron
looked at the blue channel alone for the SS4000/canon he would see part of
the reason for his observations - jpeg artefacts. We have  files compressed
down to 1.2meg and 430kbyte and then expect to make a fair and reasonable
determination on the scanners noise capability, get real The canon blue
channel is a mass of clumped jpeg artefacts, there is virtually no detail
that can be misconstrued as noise. The SS4000 isn't as bad and has detail,
you see detail Byron, NOT NOISE


The blown highlights are NOT a feature of the SS4000. I have used this
scanner extensively with Insight, SilverFast and VueScan. Frankly, the
operator screwed something badly, because this problem is not a function of
any of these programs when properly configured. While we're at it the Elite
scan shows the same problem. The scanwit and canon not so bad, but again
this proves nothing


I'm privileged enough to have full access to three of the models discussed,
namely the LS30, the SS4000 and the Canon 2710. I also have fairly free
access to the Scanwit and Minolta units. So far as what has been written
about the Canon, Nikon and SS4000 I can only write - bilge

I'll leave it for others to decide about the Minolta and Scanwit, but again
I think it equally unhelpful.

Tonys point by point says the rest better than I can, so I won't bore you.

Folk join this list to gain a better insight as to the good and bad of
scanners, how to best use their scanners, etc. The Group Scan site began
with admirable intentions, but alas some of those commenting to date have
IMO done nothing but damage. None of the scanners discussed is inherently
bad, but this is not the message being given out, either by word or scan!!!


No doubt many will be severely pissed at my views, but consider this - I'm
equally pissed at the garbage being passed off as helpful information.



Ian Lyons
http://welcome.to/computerdarkroom







The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Peter Besenbruch]

Melba in Korea wrote:

> I have been reading up on the Nikon LS2000 and the Polaroid
> Sprintscan 4000. The more I read the more confused I get. The
> Nikon has low resolution compared to the Polaroid, but comes
> with Digital Ice and Altamira Genuine Fractals(which is
> supposed to enlarge a 35mm photo to billboard size. Any
> comments on either machines performance would be greatly
> appreciated.

If it is your business to make a lot of very good quality scans 
from slides and negatives that have had less than stellar care, 
the Nikon is the way to go. The Nikon also had the edge in 
color correction when working with Photoshop, although I'm 
not sure this is the case any more.

If you want to wring every bit of information possible from a 
35mm exposure without spending $10,000 (U.S), get the 
Polaroid.

_
Hawaiian Astronomical Society
http://www.hawastsoc.org


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Canoscan FS2710

[Bigboy9955]

Does the Canoscan FS2710 have ICE??  If so, was it Nikon technology? Is it 
the same in every scanner?  Meaning if a scanner has ICE, is it universal in 
what it does?  (apologies for being late I was on vacation!)
Ed


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: determining scanner's native gamut

[shAf]

ED writes ...

> In a message dated 9/18/2000 8:58:13 AM EST,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I believe Vuescan does make some
> >  adjustments to the raw scan based on its calibration of
> the scanner
> >  and its understanding of the generic scanner space,
> which might in
> >  turn make using the manufacturer's profile problematic.
>
> No, the raw scan is pure, unadulterated data straight from
> the CCD.  On some scanners there's a multiplier applied
> to each CCD position to adjust for uneven lighting and
> different CCD sensitivity, but in no case is there any
> mixing of the red, green, and blue channels.
> ...

Not sure what you mean "mixing of the red, green, and blue channels"
... but does your response "some scanners [can use] a multiplier"
imply the raw scan be altered??  If so, which scanners??? (Nikon
LS-2000?)

shAf  :o)



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

On the SS4000 (was: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans)

[Peter Besenbruch]

Rob Geraghty wrote:

> FWIW I was going to buy a SS4000 before I decided on the LS30,
> and the *only* reason I was forced to change my mind was cost. I
> still believe that in it's price bracket, the SS4000 is the best
> scanner I know of on the market.  Unfortunately, we can't all
> afford it.

As a hobbyist, it was more a question of being married to a 
woman who said, "Go ahead, buy it."  It helps that she 
likes photography, and that her efforts are looking very good.

We got into digital darkroom work by purchasing the 
Photosmart printer and scanner. That purchase ended 
decades of disappointment with photo labs. It even beat the 
venerable Slideprinter for results.

Still, there were some slides and negatives that brought the 
scanner to its knees. Then I bought the SS4000, based in 
large measure on Tony's review. Using Vuescan 6, I have been 
systematically throwing all my killer slides and negatives at it, 
and for fun, scanning a few with the Photosmart to compare.

These are my own killer images, and they make the 
Photosmart, a decent scanner, look bad. The Polaroid, on the 
other hand, will get almost every bit of information off of a slide 
or negative that I can see with a 10x loupe and a light table.

No scanner is perfect. I often wish for digital ICE, and that the 
thing didn't look like an ugly, black shoe box. High density, 50 
pin SCSI connectors would be nice, and I never have been 
able to get Insight to produce an acceptable scan. Still, I'm 
glad I bought it, and I will hang on to this scanner for quite 
some time.

_
Hawaiian Astronomical Society
http://www.hawastsoc.org


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Scanners for negatives

[John Sparks]

I've been thinking about getting a film scanner.  Almost everything I would
want to scan is 35mm color negatives.  I also have lots of B&W negatives,
but most are bigger than 35mm and my budget will not allow for a larger
scanner (and I have a good B&W darkroom that I intend to keep using).  The
scanning would be for output on an Epson 1270 or similar sizes on something
better at a service bureau.

In the short time I've been getting this list, I've seen a number of
comments on this list about problems scanning negatives.  I can easily see
that a scanner with a shadow noise in slides becomes a scanner with much
more noticable noise in highlights when scanning negatives.  Are there other
major problems with negatives?  Is any scanner software particularly good
(or bad) with negatives?  Is there any consensus about good scanners for
negatives?  My budget could be stretched to include something like a Nikon
2000 or Polaroid 4000, but I'd rather spend less if possible.

John Sparks



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: labelling archive cdrs

[Bob Sull]

Bill Ross wrote:
> 
> I use a mechanical scribing device (on the center ring).
> 
> Bill Ross

My H-P drive came with a label applicator and "Neato" software to make
labels.  I found a pack of Fellowes labels at a store for less than $20
US a pack.  I don't remember how many in a pack but is was a good deal.

Bob

-- 
   //
  ( 0 0 )
-73 de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Living in the last year of the 20th Century and 2nd Millennium.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[bjs]

- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 3:51 AM
Subject: RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans



> 1. Highlight detail can be clipped in software, but that's the software
> and/or operator. 16bits will *always* get everything, with some headroom,
> and is necessary.

Not correct Tony.   If the scanner has a limited Dmin or incorrectly sets the
exposure so that the CCD saturates then it will clip and the software/operator
can't fix that. 16 bit does *NOT* always get everything let alone with some
headroom.

I assume you have not actually read our test protocol...   It uses Vuescan in
16 bit mode with wp=0.001%.  This was intended to establish the "clipping"
point of the data and reflects what the scanner is actually doing with exposure
barring Vuescan bugs.

There may be Vuescan bugs depending on whether it calculates the exposure
setting or uses the scanners firmware.   Ed would have to give us some guidance
on that point.



> Shadows can get clipped even in 16bit. This is a
> hardware limitation - the minimum black point is set unnecessarily high
> in firmware

Software can also affect this unless the bp  is set to 0.0%  which we have
specified in the test protocol.   So our test protocol gets all the black data
the scanner provides -- precisely the information we are seeking.  We want to
see what the scanner/firmware does to the black point.



> 2. The Pol4000 is inherently as sharp as the pixel resolution allows. Give
> it a sharp TMax400CN neg, turn A/F on, and the result will be nearly
> indistinguishable from an A4 bromide made with a Schneider Componon-S.
> There is a very minor loss of micro-detail in the scan, but it is
> critically sharp. However you will need to apply just enough USM to see
> this fully, as aliasing (not grain, vanilla) masks sharpness in all CCD
> units to various degrees. More than approximate comparisons here are very
> difficult then, because (a)you can't actually see how sharp the scanner is
> without using USM, and (b)the amount of USM which is optimal varies for
> each scanner, partly as a function of pixel resolution, partly depending
> on the CCD and electronics themselves.
>

Using images and playing with USM (which actually reduces resolution) is
completely uncontrolled since you have no method of determining the images
inherent resolution and no method of quantifying any differences.   Also, until
your compare with other scanners it is hard to know if your scanner is the
same, better or worse than the competition.   Your tests are anecdotal and high
subjective.  For our uses, the way to test the resolution is to use a
resolution slide.   The scanners with more resolution scores higher.

Also, USM is a red herring since one can apply it and fool the eye into
thinking there is more resolution than exists.  This can be done with any
scanner.   The way to avoid this is use a real resolution target since the
presence or absence of USM doesn't affect the resolution score when using a
proper resolution target.

If you have an Polaroid and wish to contribute to the groups knowledge then
please scan a resolution target and post the differences between a 3000 dpi
scan and a 4000 dpi scan.  That isn't perfect but it would help us determine
the likelihood of some kind of problem unfairly affecting the Polaroid results.

Also, you are welcome to get in on the groups list and scan the resolution
target (and the other images) so we can have another Polaroid sample in case's
Johnnys unit is faulty.   But if you do participate you must read and use the
test protocol.  It is designed to remove the skill level of the operator as a
factor and minimize the software impacts.

Rather than critisize, contribute.  It just sounds like sour grapes now.


> 3. CCD noise just is not an issue with this scanner, to date it is by far
> the quietest device I have looked at, matched only by the LS2000 using 16x
> multiscanning. I suspect that the black-point clipping masks amputates
> this to an extent, but the fact is that I have never seen noise of any
> significant amount in *any* scan I have gotten from a 4000. Shadow
> compression happens, and you can tweak the gamma to try and linearise this
> and still not be troubled with noise. I do this routinely.

Well noise is clearly an issue on the Halloween slide.So we have to deal
with that somehow.



> Anyway, the blown highlights are not a 4000 problem at all, but can happen
> with Vuescan used in 8 bits. If you have a scanner which is capable than
> >8bits worth of dynamic range, something is going to go out of range.

Hmmm, are you saying that the Polaroid saturates the CCD when it is switched
into 8 bit mode?
If so then this sounds like a flaw with the Polaroid.

A  8 bit scanner should set the zero value to the minimum reading and the
maximum to the maximum reading just like 16 bit mode.   The difference is in
the intervening quantization levels n

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Alan Hoisman]

I'm very impressed with the ss4000, and even like the Software. Are the scans three 
times the quality of a Canon 2720; certainly not!  In some cases they are
not even marginally better: but sometimes they are.
Alan

Melba's Mail wrote:

> Alan,
> So you are not impressed with the SS4000 at all? Melba
>



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Dimage Scan Dual II

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 2:26:53 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I am interested in any experience or opinions on this scanner, which looks 
>  like a substantial upgrade from the original Dual.  

I think I can be fairly unbiased about scanners, since VueScan
supports both the Scan Dual II and the FS2710.

I wouldn't say that the FS2710 is a bad scanner, but rather that
the Scan Dual II is an excellent scanner.  In addition, has a
big advantage in that it can batch scan a 6 frame negative
or 4 slides, while the FS2710 needs to be manually repositioned
for each scan.

Both are 12 bit scanners, and both have pretty good color fidelity.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Canoscan FS2710

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 3:35:27 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Does the Canoscan FS2710 have ICE?

No, it doesn't.  ICE is another way of saying "has an infrared
channel and uses the ICE algorithm to remove dust using
this infrared channel".  The FS2710 doesn't have an infrared
channel.

> Is it 
>  the same in every scanner?  Meaning if a scanner has ICE, is it universal 
in 
>  what it does?

The infrared channel on the Minolta Scan Elite is slightly different
from the infrared channel on the Nikon scanners.  On the Scan
Elite, it appears to add the infrared diode's signal on top of the
normal light from the xenon bulb, while on the Nikon scanners,
it pulses four colored diodes on and off in order (red, green,
blue, and infrared diodes).

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: VueScan and Minolta Scan Dual II

[YvesBeri]

Per my other post to this list, Minolta says they will have it by then 
anyway.  

I wonder how the market breaks down among film scanner users, Mac vs PC.

Berry


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Dimage Scan Dual II

[YvesBeri]

Addendum:  I asked Minolta about Mac support for this scanner.

"Answer: 
At this time, there is no Macintosh software available for the Dimage Scan 
Dual II.  Macintosh drivers should be available by the end of the Fall.  
Please check our Software Updates page for new postings."

I am still interested, although less so, in any opinions about this scanner.

Thanks.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Canoscan FS2710

[Bruce Roberts]

No Canon doesn't yet use ICE. ICE is a technology that scanner manufacturers
license from Applied Science Fiction (www.appliedsciencefiction.com). This
technology is explained very well at their web site. I am personally looking
forward to seeing who brings out scanners using the newer Ice3 technology -
later this year according to their site.

Bruce Roberts
Australia.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2000 5:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Canoscan FS2710
>
>
> Does the Canoscan FS2710 have ICE??  If so, was it Nikon
> technology? Is it
> the same in every scanner?  Meaning if a scanner has ICE, is it
> universal in
> what it does?  (apologies for being late I was on vacation!)
> Ed
>
> 
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE
> FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if
> you are reading the Digest.
>



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: how does the mailing list work?

[Laurie Solomon]

Of course it depends on what you mean by "minority problem" and whom you are
talking to.

Check out: For the latest on the 1270/870/875DC Orange-Shift
  }
 Head to http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/
Or you could check out the latest issue of PCWorld or Bruce Fraser's open
letter in MacWeek
(http://macweek.zdnet.com/cgi-bin/storyforums/storyforums/_2000_09_03_0908co
lorgeek/forum.pl?read=86.  Epson has responded to Bruce's letter ( but I
have lost the link), which hopefully can be found with other related
materials at the www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ site.

The problem seems to be the ease with which the dyes ( especially the cyan)
are susceptible to oxidation and air contaimination; they are found to take
place faster and with greater ease on the Premium Glossy paper but are also
found to take place on the other papers as well although not to the same
degree or extent.  The premium glossy was taken offf the moraket by Epson to
be replaced by a new formulation that has an oxidation barrier which will
retard the orange shift 5-6 times longer than under the old Premium glossy
formulation but will not prevent it from taking place.  This, however, is
really meaningless if you are one of the people who live in an area where
such shifts took place within a day to two weeks of printing since 5-6 times
longer would result in de4laying the shift for 6 days to twelve weeks. :-)


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how does the mailing list work?


> PS The output from the 1270 on Epson Premium Glossy paper is awesome,
> but there is a problem with prints getting an orange cast over time.

Yes, I know, but it seems to be a minority problem. However you're quite
right to warn about it.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS
in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the
Digest.



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[bjs]

- Original Message -
From: "ILyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans



> I have no dispute with the concept and aims of the experiment, but much that
> has been written is clearly erroneous, worse still it is being circulated to
> a much wider audience than the members of this list. It is for this reason
> that I decided to comment.

I haven't circulated my comments beyond this list and don't intend to.  The
reason is that I was hoping to stimulate civilized and informed discussion
within the group although to date it seems more vitriolic than useful.

I agree conclusions shouldn't be spread afar until all the data is in.
Certainly it is far too early to be making any final conclusions with less than
10% of the data available.




> accurate. The protocol says at approx. 1 meg jpeg. Only the SS4000 exceeds
> this, some don't even manage 400kbyte. So the images we view don't even
> satisfy your own criteria, yet you (and expect others) make judgement calls
> on these scanners that could potentially effect sales.

Actually, the protocol specifies level 6 JPG compression in Photoshop and
doesn't force a fixed file size.  There is an important reason for this.
Scanners with more detail and pixels should show larger file sizes given the
same compression level.

Doing it your way by fixing the files sizes at 1 meg (or whatever) actually
hides differences between scanners and isn't recommended.

For example, it would be unfair to force the ss4000 to the 400kbyte files of a
Scanwit given the ss4000 has far more pixels.  The only way it could achieve
the same file size  would be to use a much harsher compression level and thus
throw out a lot of information.  This would unfairly penalize the ss4000 for
having that extra information to start with.   So we fix the level of
compression and let the file sizes fall out of that.
Normally the ss4000 will have the larger file size as a result.





> Frankly, I find it quiet unbelievable that anyone would be so fool hardy as
> to agree with Byrons comments regarding the softness of the SS4000 Halloween
> scan given that it was clearly reversed (thankfully nobody appears to have
> done so, there is hope afterall).

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.  I did not report this slide to be
soft at all.   I quote:

  "No visible differences in sharpness that I could see.  The slide doesn't
   appear critically sharp anyway."

This means it was as sharp as the others.  And for anyone expecting it to be
sharper  I pointed out the slide itself didn't seem to be critically sharp so
was the limiting factor.I had absolutely no issues with the Polaroid on
this slide.

You are just making stuff up.



> The comment regarding noise in the hat rim is equally incorrect, had Byron
> looked at the blue channel alone for the SS4000/canon he would see part of
> the reason for his observations - jpeg artefacts. We have  files compressed
> down to 1.2meg and 430kbyte and then expect to make a fair and reasonable
> determination on the scanners noise capability, get real The canon blue
> channel is a mass of clumped jpeg artefacts, there is virtually no detail
> that can be misconstrued as noise. The SS4000 isn't as bad and has detail,
> you see detail Byron, NOT NOISE

Both images are supposed to be saved at the same level of JPEG compression.
This means the SS4000 will be the larger file as expected since it has more
pixels and presumably detail.The files sizes seem reasonable to me given
that.

As for more detail in the ss4000 rather than noise, I looked again and I see
noise.  Please note the comments I've made about the black level and white
point clipping problems with this image.  I think the best comparison is to set
the shadow detail levels the same and then compare with the other scanners
(Canon and Elite).   When doing this, the Polaroid just looks like noise and
not detail.  The Canon and Elite both seem to produce true detail (you can see
folds in the hat for example) without the noise.

Perhaps someone else that feels up to making the necessary adjustments to the
image to address the black/white point issues correctly will look at the image
and comment on whether they think the blue "noise" is detail or noise.   I see
it as noise.

I'll also point out that I've never seen a black halloween hat with clumpy blue
thingy's spread all over it...





> The blown highlights are NOT a feature of the SS4000. I have used this
> scanner extensively with Insight, SilverFast and VueScan. Frankly, the
> operator screwed something badly, because this problem is not a function of
> any of these programs when properly configured.

Comment noted. We'll have see what Johnny actually did since it shows up on the
"leaves in the sky" image as well (The Elite showed expected white point value
and the Polaroid seems to clip).

The setting is simple, only wp=0.001% so

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[cjcronin]

At 03:50 PM 18-09-00, you wrote:
>Like Tony, David and I dare say a few others I have kept quiet about this
>series of tests.

You could always go back to keeping quiet :)

>Alan and Co are free to write what they please and publish where and how
>they see it, but they also have a "duty" to ensure that what is written is
>accurate. The protocol says at approx. 1 meg jpeg. Only the SS4000 exceeds
>this, some don't even manage 400kbyte. So the images we view don't even
>satisfy your own criteria, yet you (and expect others) make judgement calls
>on these scanners that could potentially effect sales.

Umm, when you crop an image, the file size goes down. I imagine that since the ss4000 
has a higher resolution it will have a bigger file size. Download the files and look 
at them yourself and you can make your own judgement as well as anyone else can. Also 
find as many websites as you can with information about scanners. It comes down to 
people need to decide for themselves what they need in a scanner.

>Frankly, I find it quiet unbelievable that anyone would be so fool hardy as
>to agree with Byrons comments regarding the softness of the SS4000 Halloween
>scan given that it was clearly reversed (thankfully nobody appears to have
>done so, there is hope afterall)

Everyone has a right to their opinion after all. The image was not clearly reversed. 
How was it clearly reversed? Perhaps the operator did not have the mirror box checked. 
Personally, after comparing the image of the road (B&W negative) from the ss4000 and 
the Scan Elite, I can see where the ss4000 has a slight increase in sharpness and/or 
detail. I would imagine the increase in sharpness would be more noticeable with an 
extremely sharp image.

>In fact if anything I doubt anything Byron wrote (even the bits that were
>correct) will have any credibility given such a fundamental error of
>judgement. I can see no plausible excuse for said image even getting to the
>web site for display. Alan you own the negative you should know better.

Whatever

>The comment regarding noise in the hat rim is equally incorrect, had Byron
>looked at the blue channel alone for the SS4000/canon he would see part of
>the reason for his observations - jpeg artefacts. We have  files compressed
>down to 1.2meg and 430kbyte and then expect to make a fair and reasonable
>determination on the scanners noise capability, get real The canon blue
>channel is a mass of clumped jpeg artefacts, there is virtually no detail
>that can be misconstrued as noise. The SS4000 isn't as bad and has detail,
>you see detail Byron, NOT NOISE

The files are not resized, just saved in a different format. Would you be willing to 
wait for a level 7 or 8 jpg to download? For that matter e-mailing it would take 
awhile too.

>The blown highlights are NOT a feature of the SS4000. I have used this
>scanner extensively with Insight, SilverFast and VueScan. Frankly, the
>operator screwed something badly, because this problem is not a function of
>any of these programs when properly configured. While we're at it the Elite
>scan shows the same problem. The scanwit and canon not so bad, but again
>this proves nothing

Any ideas on how not to have blown highlights? Perhaps there is a setting being 
overlooked?

>I'm privileged enough to have full access to three of the models discussed,
>namely the LS30, the SS4000 and the Canon 2710. I also have fairly free
>access to the Scanwit and Minolta units. So far as what has been written
>about the Canon, Nikon and SS4000 I can only write - bilge

Why don't you do a your own scanner test (since you have access to so many scanners) 
and post it to the web?

>Folk join this list to gain a better insight as to the good and bad of
>scanners, how to best use their scanners, etc. The Group Scan site began
>with admirable intentions, but alas some of those commenting to date have
>IMO done nothing but damage. None of the scanners discussed is inherently
>bad, but this is not the message being given out, either by word or scan!!!

Unfortunately you can't try before you buy when you purchase a scanner. I imagine it 
would be difficult to return too unless it was broken. None of the scanners are bad 
but I image people would like to get the best they can afford. I know I would.

>No doubt many will be severely pissed at my views, but consider this - I'm
>equally pissed at the garbage being passed off as helpful information.

Well gee, I thought I was doing something helpful. If it is such garbage, then leave 
it in your garbage. Don't pull it out and look at it again, trash it and move on. Like 
I said at the beginning of this post: "You could always go back to keeping quiet"

>Ian Lyons
>http://welcome.to/computerdarkroom

Jules_C



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNS

Re: Canoscan FS2710

[Tony Sleep]

> Does the Canoscan FS2710 have ICE??
No
> If so, was it Nikon technology?
No


Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: A new conflict

[Tony Sleep]

> If your going to get a new card for a PC I'd recommend a Matrox. I've
> used them for years with Photoshop starting with V3. Matrox is vry
> aggresive in driver updates. 

I agree, Matrox are good, solid cards for imaging, at reasonable prices. 

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

drum scans -> 48bit?

[Bill Ross]

I've discovered that places with drum scanners normally output 
only 24bit images - in California, at any rate: Calypso, West 
Coast Imaging, The New Lab. According to WCI, which has a Tango 
scanner, the only way to output 48bit is with PC-based Linocolor 
software (not Mac, which is what WCI uses).

Does anyone know a Tango shop that outputs 48-bit?

Bill Ross



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Canoscan FS2710

[Austin Franklin]

> ICE is another way of saying "has an infrared
> channel and uses the ICE algorithm to remove dust using
> this infrared channel".  The FS2710 doesn't have an infrared
> channel.

What's the big deal with just cleaning the negative?  I don't get it...





The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: W2000 and Canoscan FS2710

[Steven \(Alex\) Alexander II]

Yes, I have had to deal with the same problem. I found the solution on the
Australian Canon website. The solution is to install two scsi updates and
then the canoscan software (after which you can install VueScan if ya want).

Email me privately and I can send you the fixes.
~A~

- Original Message -
From: "Colin Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:50 AM
Subject: W2000 and Canoscan FS2710


Has anyone successfully installed a working copy of Canoscan software on
W2000?

I have the present use of a machine with W2000 on it, but am having no
success in getting the Canon software for the FS2710 going properly.
Canoscan 3.6.1 (or 3.6.3) installs ok, but the Twain hookup will not work
with any of three editing programs that have been tried. The FS2710 selects
fine in the Select Source box, but shortly after going to "image - acquire"
the system gives up, and either closes the image editing program, or says
that the program has caused an error.

The SCSI card installation is fine, I reckon, as it works properly (twain
and all) with my older Microtek E6 flatbed, after applying a W2000 patch to
the Scanwizard software.

The Canon web pages have been trawled for relevant info, such as the 3.6.3
software, but no success so far. Any suggestions please?

Colin Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS
in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the
Digest.



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Bravo for VueScan

[Steven \(Alex\) Alexander II]

Hey gang,

Ed helped me solve the strange color issue on the Canon FS 2710.
Essentially, I need to scan in 48bit color mode and when the image is saved,
it will convert to 24bit color if I so choose. The colors are correct that
way.

But really, the reason I am applauding VueScan is due to the impressive
results I am getting while scanning negs of a 50th Anniversary "wedding"
(renewal of vows) I just shot Saturday. I had a local store process the negs
and print them - and I was aghast at the -1 to -2 EV underexposure on almost
every frame (I was shooting NHGII 800 at 1/125, f/2.8-f/4.0 with bounced
flash). After wrestling with my depression over 5 rolls of marginal shots, I
decided I would plop a few into the scanner and see if I would get the same
results as the lab; knowing people who run printers make mistakes.

To my utter amazement, after clicking preview - the negs scanned - and I was
rewarded with ACCURATELY exposed images! I didn't touch a thing in the
software, the negs show a good color balance and sharpness. I am going to
print a few of these out to prove my point and have the lab reprint all five
rolls (probably tell them to bump their "default" up by a stop or two).

One thing that I wasn't happy about is that some of the negs are SCRATCHED -
GR. I don't know what to do about that, except to demand my moolah back
for those rolls.

Anyway, I was so relieved to find that my shots were good (at least
exposure-wise - lol), and that the printing was the screw-up. We'll see what
the lab will do for me.

By the way, I chose a local Walgreens for the processing this time around
(don't throw stones just yet). I had Wolf Camera's "pro" department do the
last batch and they printed all of the images at about +2 EV over the
original negs...the bride looked as if she were dressed in white butcher
paper! So, I don't think I trust anyone behind the printmaker. But I DO
trust VueScan and the FS 2710 hardware...it works well for me.

Can anyone recommend a GOOD print lab in the Dallas, TX metro area?

Thanks!
~A~
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.kewlpack.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Zeuspaul]

>Your concerns are all valid, but one of the intents of the group scan was to teach 
>the owners of the
>individual scanners how the other scanners would handle their sample images.

This aspect of the group scans has a lot of merit.  I too am interested
in how others handle various types of images.  I am also interested in
various film types and if different scanners handle them differently.

My skepticism relates to comparing the hardware.

John Snyder


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: A new conflict

[Mystic]

FWIW, I just purchased a Matrox G400 16MB OEM card for $110 US.  Don't know if this is 
a
good deal or not, but so far, I like the card.
Rsy,
Mike Knapp

- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 13:03
Subject: Re: A new conflict


> If your going to get a new card for a PC I'd recommend a Matrox. I've
> used them for years with Photoshop starting with V3. Matrox is vry
> aggresive in driver updates.

I agree, Matrox are good, solid cards for imaging, at reasonable prices.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons

The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title,
or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Scanners for negatives

[Jo Ann Snover]

John,

> Is there any consensus about good scanners for
> negatives?  My budget could be stretched to include something like a Nikon
> 2000 or Polaroid 4000, but I'd rather spend less if possible.

I can only speak for my own experience, but I've had a Nikon LS-30 for
over a year and have been very happy with the results - scanning color
negatives exclusively, although I'm about to try some slide film. I've
had a few problems with very underexposed shots, but otherwise the
results have been excellent and have produced output up to 13x19 on my
1270 or up to 8x10 on my ALPS MD-5000 in dye sub mode.

I'm not a professional photographer (I think I'd be called a prosumer by
marketeers), but I think I'm fairly picky about how the output looks.
I've been using NikonScan 2.5 into Photoshop 5.5, but have been
experimenting with VueScan 6.1 as it seems for some negs to get better
results from the scanner.

The only time I lust after higher resolution is when I think of buying a
larger format printer - I think 13 x 19 is probably the usefull limit of
35mm negs scanned with the LS-30.

Have you checked out the reviews at:

http://www.imaging-resource.com

Hope this helps

Jo Ann


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Bill Ross]

I suggest adding this to the protocol: 

   include details of specified areas (e.g. the infamous witch's hat) 
   in 100% jpeg (no compression) and/or downloadable tif

   show color curves from raw tiff of each picture & detail

Bill Ross


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Zeuspaul]

> Zeuspaul wrote:
> >To the best of my knowledge Vuescan has separate drivers for different
> >scanners.  What guarantee is there that the drivers are of equal
> >quality?  If focusing is required does Vuescan do it as well as the
> >manufacturers software? maybe better? maybe not as well?
> 
> AIUI, Ed has reverse engineered the SCSI commands sent to the scanner by
> the manufacturer's software.  The results with things like focus should
> be identical.


My experience indicates they are not.  Using Vuescan with a Minolta
Dimage Multi I occasionally get an out of focus scan.  Using the Minolta
software I have never had an out of focus scan.  This observation is
based upon scanning approximately 2000 images with the Minolta software.

When I use Vuescan approximately one in twenty scans is out of focus. 
Sometimes an out of focus scan will appear after 6 scans and sometimes
it will appear after 30 scans.  I can determine no consistency.

I batch scan 4 slides at a time.  I make no changes to any settings when
using Vuescan.  The scans are saved to 16 bit raw files in both Vuescan
and the Minolta software for later manipulation in SilverFast HDR.

If I rescan the same slide without changing settings and without
removing or repositioning the slide in the slide holder in most cases
the second scan yields an in focus scan.


John Snyder


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: labelling archive cdrs

[Jim Snyder]

Jonathan Buzzard wrote:

> Alan Tyson wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Speaking as a chemist, I'd say we need a pen that won't
> > dissolve the lacquer layer (if present) on the non-playing
> > side of the CD, and then won't attack the metallic
> > reflective layer if it gets that far. If the layer is gold
> > or silver it will be remarkably robust, chemically speaking,
> > so I'm a bit bemused as to why any old marker pen won't do.
> > Remember that all the data is in the bottom (non-label side)
> > of the CD, inside thick layers of polycarbonate with a
> > metallic reflective layer between it and the top (label)
> > surface.
>
> You could not be further from the truth. The data on any CD
> is just below the lacquer layer. If you not believe me
> take a dud or blank CDR and snap it in two (in a bin is a
> good idea as the polycarbonate flies everywhere). You will see
> the datasurface peel off in thin flakes with the lacquer
> layer.
>
> Pressed CD are stamped in polycarbonate, the aluminium or gold
> is evaporated on to the disk, and then the aluminium/gold is
> covered in lacquer and printed on.
>
> This is why you need to be carefull what you use to write on
> the CD with. Ball point pens are a very silly idea, and anything
> that will damage the lacquer layer is not good. You need to
> use a waterbased ink with a dye/pigment that will not attack
> the lacquer layer.
>
> If you are worried write on the inside rim of the disk.
>

Simply a tempest in a teapot. All permanent markers use alcohols and organic solvents 
for their transport mechanism. None of these attack either deposited
aluminum or gold. Yes, some bizarre pens may dissolve the lacquer layers of really 
poor quality CDs, but chemical dissolution of that layer has no impact on
the data layer. Now ball point pens exert pressure and...

Jim (former chemist) Snyder



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Canoscan FS2710

[Bruce Roberts]

You can't clean scratches off.

...and you never really get *all* the dust, grime, grease, hairs, etc. off.

Try ICE. It's pretty impressive to see a comparison. I'm looking forward to
4000dpi scanners with it...

Bruce.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2000 9:24 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Canoscan FS2710
>
>
> > ICE is another way of saying "has an infrared
> > channel and uses the ICE algorithm to remove dust using
> > this infrared channel".  The FS2710 doesn't have an infrared
> > channel.
>
> What's the big deal with just cleaning the negative?  I don't get it...
>
>
>
>
> 
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE
> FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if
> you are reading the Digest.
>



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Rob Geraghty]

John wrote:
>This aspect of the group scans has a lot of merit.  I too am interested
>in how others handle various types of images.  I am also interested in
>various film types and if different scanners handle them differently.
>My skepticism relates to comparing the hardware.

I never thought that the group scanning exercise was something
that would become the basis for choosing a scanner.  I *hope*
people don't use the information that way.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Alan Womack]

I'm starting to explore the possibility of getting the full res tiffs onto a CD at the 
end of the group scan that could be made available to people for a time and materials 
basis.  It's tough if someone doesn't have a ZIP drive or a CDR/W to provide the files 
in the 37 meg and up range..  ;)



  >>  I suggest adding this to the protocol: 

  >> include details of specified areas (e.g. the infamous witch's hat) 
  >> in 100% jpeg (no compression) and/or downloadable tif

Do you mean a histogram?

Before settling on a JPG compression I looked very closely at shape and distribution 
of histograms in Photoshop and noticed no noticable difference from the tiff files.  
You should be able to dl the files and look at the different shapes from the scanners. 
 There is quite a difference.

  >> show color curves from raw tiff of each picture & detail


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Alan Womack]

Nope, not pissed.  Often feel MUGGED by your posts, not your views.

>> No doubt many will be severely pissed at my views, but consider this - I'm
equally pissed at the garbage being passed off as helpful information.

It would have been helpful if in the initial stages of coming with a method you would 
have shared your wisdom.  It's been noted that you teach by razor critisism rather 
than by leadership when you post to the lists.  Your council is truthful, usually 
abrupt and occassionaly criptic.

>> Like Tony, David and I dare say a few others I have kept quiet about this
series of tests. 

Errors will be corrected, as is the process with any learning, discussion leads to 
understanding.

>> I have no dispute with the concept and aims of the experiment, but much that
has been written is clearly erroneous

Where is this being circulated?  The posts about the project have been made to 
Scan@Leben and here at Filmscanners.

>> worse still it is being circulated to a much wider audience than the members of 
>this list. It is for this reason
that I decided to comment.

I don't recall Byron discussing sharpness of this slide.  The slide is soft in focus, 
it was taken on a tripod with a cable release, but the focus is off a bit.  The slide 
was included NOT because it was sharp but because of grain aliasing in the skin tones 
vs. the exact same subject matter (my children) on the negative.  The negative was 
taken at the same session on a tripod without a cable release and was a full autofocus 
Nikon.

I have the benefit of looking at the TIFF files that John sent on a CDR, I noticed the 
possibility of the image being reversed, and examined it at extreme magnification in 
PS.  I could see no ill effect from the possible reversal.  There is a check box in 
vuescan to mirror the scan and produce this effect.  John is evidently traveling in 
England and unavailable to discuss this possibility.  

>> Frankly, I find it quiet unbelievable that anyone would be so fool hardy as
to agree with Byrons comments regarding the softness of the SS4000 Halloween
scan given that it was clearly reversed (thankfully nobody appears to have
done so, there is hope afterall).

Byron also had the opportunity to look at crop in TIFF format of this region.  A 
courtesy I would extend to others if they would express a pleasant request.

>> The comment regarding noise in the hat rim is equally incorrect, had Byron
looked at the blue channel alone for the SS4000/canon he would see part of
the reason for his observations - jpeg artefacts. We have  files compressed
down to 1.2meg and 430kbyte and then expect to make a fair and reasonable
determination on the scanners noise capability, get real The canon blue
channel is a mass of clumped jpeg artefacts, there is virtually no detail
that can be misconstrued as noise. The SS4000 isn't as bad and has detail,
you see detail Byron, NOT NOISE

Your comments are part of them learning, by being silent you prevent them from 
learning the hard earned wisdom you have accumulated.  I for one have already learned 
that unless I start using a tripod for all of my photos, a 4000 dpi scanner would be a 
waste of money for additional image detail.  Ed Hamrick mentions this on his site as 
well.

Also by the end of this endevour, the partcipants will have learned about their 
scanners, learned a good deal about different films, and had a good time!

>> Folk join this list to gain a better insight as to the good and bad of
scanners, how to best use their scanners, etc. The Group Scan site began
with admirable intentions, but alas some of those commenting to date have
IMO done nothing but damage. None of the scanners discussed is inherently
bad, but this is not the message being given out, either by word or scan!!!


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Tony Sleep]

I was going to sit this one out and watch what happened, but (since it's 
what I use) the conclusions that are being formulated about the 
Pol4000+Vuescan mostly do not accord with my experience. The picture is 
emerging of a scanner which blows highlights, isn't particularly sharp, 
and produces significant amounts of CCD noise. Something is wrong 
somewhere. 

1. Highlight detail can be clipped in software, but that's the software 
and/or operator. 16bits will *always* get everything, with some headroom, 
and is necessary. Shadows can get clipped even in 16bit. This is a 
hardware limitation - the minimum black point is set unnecessarily high 
in firmware - but the white point is wholly a software and/or operator 
issue.

2. The Pol4000 is inherently as sharp as the pixel resolution allows. Give 
it a sharp TMax400CN neg, turn A/F on, and the result will be nearly 
indistinguishable from an A4 bromide made with a Schneider Componon-S. 
There is a very minor loss of micro-detail in the scan, but it is 
critically sharp. However you will need to apply just enough USM to see 
this fully, as aliasing (not grain, vanilla) masks sharpness in all CCD 
units to various degrees. More than approximate comparisons here are very 
difficult then, because (a)you can't actually see how sharp the scanner is 
without using USM, and (b)the amount of USM which is optimal varies for 
each scanner, partly as a function of pixel resolution, partly depending 
on the CCD and electronics themselves.

3. CCD noise just is not an issue with this scanner, to date it is by far 
the quietest device I have looked at, matched only by the LS2000 using 16x 
multiscanning. I suspect that the black-point clipping masks amputates 
this to an extent, but the fact is that I have never seen noise of any 
significant amount in *any* scan I have gotten from a 4000. Shadow 
compression happens, and you can tweak the gamma to try and linearise this 
and still not be troubled with noise. I do this routinely.

> But hopefully with testing of the same films on different machines
> using vuescan helps.  The protocol used relies on a single version
> of vuescan, and it's the program doing the adjustments for the main
> scan.  The operators have very little effect on the result in this
> instance.

This sounds good, and is a laudable attempt to eliminate variables, but we 
still don't know what is being tested, since what comes out the end is a 
compound product of scanner + software + operator. Believe me I have put 
vast amounts of time and effort into trying to deconstruct this matrix! It 
takes a lot of poking and pulling to try and understand where limitations 
are arising, and quite often you just can't know for sure. That is one 
reason why I have abandoned trying to do reviews just on the basis of a 
Q60 sample. The Pol4000 review took a week of my time, which was 
disastrous for me but turned up stuff even Polaroid didn't know about.
It also pointed up the hopeless limitations of the way I had been relying 
on donated samples, and at that point I had a choice : stop the whole 
project, or start doing all reviews hands-on, with equal rigour.

(The decision was the latter, but since I can't spend a quarter of the 
year not earning a penny, I've had to develop a subscription scheme, which 
is why scanner tests have had to go on the back burner).

Anyway, the blown highlights are not a 4000 problem at all, but can happen 
with Vuescan used in 8 bits. If you have a scanner which is capable than 
>8bits worth of dynamic range, something is going to go out of range. A 
noisy CCD reduces dynamic range. It would therefore be unsafe to conclude 
that a scanner which doesn't exhibit those symptoms is superior. 

> > The best example of this is Tony Sleep's experience in his scanner
> > testing effort. When he started he had users send him scans of a
> > Q60 target and based his results on those scans. When he reviewed
> > the SS4000 I was very insistent he base his review on him doing
> > the scans himself.

It's all Hemingway's fault:) I was very resistant to this, but he was 
right. I'd probably have reached similar conclusions to most other 
reviewers if I'd just had a Q60 sample, who at the time were saying 'it's 
not sharp, there are weird green bits which are shadow noise, what a 
disappointment'. The AF bug became known soon enough, but there never was 
any shadow noise, it was Insight 3.5 mangling the data.

> Rigorous testing with one scanner wouldn't really be fair unless the
> same methods were applied to all the scanners in the exercise.

I agree! But the alternative is testing of all scanners which is full of 
holes. 

> 
> > I think the ongoing "anti-aliasing" thread is a good example.
> > The originator of the thread though he was seeing silver
> > grains when in fact he was not.

This is very common though, and would not be picked up as anomalous unless 
the neg or film characteristics are well-known to the person. The average 
user, who 

Re: how does the mailing list work?

[Rob Geraghty]

Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAICR now the 1520 was the A3 format 720dpi 3-colour precursor to the
> 1200? Prints will seem rather gritty. An upgrade to the 1200 or 1270 would
> make a big improvement, comparable to C41. In some ways better.

Given the noise on the Epson inkjet list about the 1270, I wouldn't advise
anyone to buy one until the ink and paper issues are resolved.  The 1160
is a four colour printer which gives excellent output, the ink fades slower,
and you can use continuous ink systems and 3rd party archival inks with
it.  The 1270 can *only* be used with OEM ink.

If John Cone makes a version of Piezography for the 1520, it would make it
a much more useful printer.  I'd suggest that the poster checks out the
digest version of the leben inkjet list at www.leben.com

Rob

PS The output from the 1270 on Epson Premium Glossy paper is awesome,
but there is a problem with prints getting an orange cast over time.

Obscanning - I must try printing one of my Nikon scans on the 1270 at work.
:)




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: VueScan and Minolta Scan Dual II

[Collin Ong]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > 1) Will VueScan currently drive the Scan Dual II on a mac?
> No, it won't.  It may never work with VueScan on a mac, since
> I don't know how to write USB drivers for a mac.

Ed, have you looked through:
http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/

particularly:
the driver development kit:
http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/download.htm

the technote "writing a USB driver"
http://developer.apple.com/hardware/usb/USBDriverTechnote/USBDriversTechnote.html

hope this helps...I want to get this scannergoing on my Mac!





The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.