re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Bill Ross]

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

Do you mean a histogram?

Yes.

You should be able to dl the files and look at the 
different shapes from the scanners.  There is quite a difference.

Better to show it directly on the web, including the
histograms (r, g, & b) from the raw scan.

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

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 6:19:04 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> 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.

VueScan computes the exposure from the preview, and it's certainly
possible that it's a VueScan bug causing the blown highlights.  The
way to test this is to turn off the "Options|Auto exposure" option
and manually reduce the computed exposure value.

The group scan site is a good idea, but people should be careful
to consider the possibility that problems are caused by a bug in the
VueScan driver for a particular scanner and not by the scanner
itself.

The image quality of film scanners really only have a few
underlying contributors:

1) Focus - how well does the scanner focus in different parts of the image
2) Color - how good does the color look on slides and negatives

Lesser factors are:

3) Linearity - how grey does a grey scale look
4) Noise - how many real bits of precision from the CCD

The best way to test focus over the full frame is to use some
kind of special test image - maybe the USAF chart.

The best way to test color is probably the group scan site.

The best way to test linearity is probably a Q60 slide.

The best way to test noise is probably by measuring the
width of the histogram in the Q60 calibration slide in different
parts of the grey bar.

The focus (depth of field) of a scanner isn't something that
VueScan can improve - it's a basic capability of the scanner.
The color quality and noise are also things VueScan can't do
a lot about.

The linearity is something I hope to correct for by letting
people scan black/white film and then computing a
linearity correction table for that particular scanner.   I
hope to make this a scanner-independant calibration
command in a future version of VueScan.

>  > 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.

Interestingly, the Scan Dual II is also quite low noise.  I agree that the
SprintScan 4000 is low noise, and that it's probably black-point clipping
in VueScan that's causing apparent noise.  The black point needs to be
set to zero to eliminate this.

The best way to see if the hardware has noise is to carefully
analyze the raw scan from the scanner.  Just get a histogram
of the darkest part of a scan and check the histogram width.

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: determining scanner's native gamut

[Rob Geraghty]

Al Bond wrote:
>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.

My understanding is that the data in the raw file is exactly what comes
from the scanner.  Differences would be due to factors like the exposure
settings - Ed has already explained that he has used different RGB exposure
settings with different versions of Vuescan on scanners like the LS30 which
support it.  Possibly the "brightness" setting, which AFAIK also adjusts
the exposure (as the Nikonscan "analog gain" does), also affect the raw
scan.

However, beyond this AFAIK there's no colour adjustment made to the raw
data.  Ed is really the only person who can answer this one.  The exposure
(integration time) is the only factor I can think of which changes.  Different
settings for the RGB exposure *will* result in different colour balances.

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

[Farzan S]

Hemingway, David 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
[snip]


As a statistician, I must agree with David. Really, this is a futile
exercise and drawing conclusions based on it would be a mistake.  There are
SO many different ways in which an error could be inserted... be it from
different monitors, different light levels in the scanning room, sampling
error, etc. etc.

Even if some minor differences are noted, once can't say if they are
statistically significant and if the same degree of difference would be seen
on repeated sampling.

Regards,

FS.



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 9/19/2000 2:25:43 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> My understanding is that the data in the raw file is exactly what comes
>  from the scanner.

That's correct.  In addition, when using multiple passes, each pixel
is the average of the raw values from the multiple passes.

>  Possibly the "brightness" setting, which AFAIK also adjusts
>  the exposure (as the Nikonscan "analog gain" does), also affect the raw
>  scan.

The "Color|Image brightness" option doesn't have any impact
on the raw scan file.  You can verify this by producing raw
scan files with different values for this option.

The "Options|RGB Exposure" option changes the
overall intensity of the raw scan file, and setting
the "Device|Media type" to "Color negative" increases
the exposure time for green and blue (on scanners
that support this).

>  However, beyond this AFAIK there's no colour adjustment made to the raw
>  data.

That's correct.

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: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[sirius]

You should apart from the jpegd versions include in your test uncompressed
output of significant details (blackpoint, whitepoint, resolution,
noise).Because Jpeg is making artefacts, because it reduces detail.
People should use generic test images like the Q60, a greyscale density test
image and some resolution test image.
Also i would NOT use any USM in the test because it can mask differences
between scanners.

Doing testing by scanning just any peoples slide doesnt make any sense and
makes the tests in my opinion pretty worthless.

Jan Albrecht




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

[Richard]

Can someone please post the URL of the Group Scan site.
-- 

Regards

Richard

//
 | @ @ --->>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  C _) )   
   --- '   
 __ /


> You should apart from the jpegd versions include in your test uncompressed
> output of significant details (blackpoint, whitepoint, resolution,
> noise).Because Jpeg is making artefacts, because it reduces detail.
> People should use generic test images like the Q60, a greyscale density test
> image and some resolution test image.
> Also i would NOT use any USM in the test because it can mask differences
> between scanners.
> 
> Doing testing by scanning just any peoples slide doesnt make any sense and
> makes the tests in my opinion pretty worthless.
> 
> Jan Albrecht
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

orange mask and output of 16 bit raw data

[Mark Ligtenberg]

- Original Message -
From: Bond, Alistair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: determining scanner's native gamut


>  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).

Is the orange mask of the color negative filtered out in the 16 bit raw data
file.

Mark Ligtenberg



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: Appearance of grain in Vuescan - a user issue?

[Roman Kielich®]

At 23:58 14/09/2000 +1000, you wrote:
>I mentioned previously that Vuescan seemed to show up the grain
>more than Nikonscan, and that it seemed to be due to differences
>in things like the black and white points and colour curves.

I don't think, you can see a real grain on a scanned picture. Most scanners 
use 10 by 10 microns CCD (or close to it), while the film grain is in 0.3-1 
micron range. I would suggest using a lossless format, rather than JPEG 
(particularly so much compressed), if you send something for comments. 
Remember that JPEG doesn't like sharp contours, high contrast elements. To 
make a file smaller, crop to show the desired elements only, and save as 
PNG. What you see is a combination of scanner pixels, I think. I looked at 
the 135 frame under a microscope (40 - 100X), and definitely, the film 
grain is much smaller than pixels on the scanned image. Color balance, 
contrast - "blame" software. I don't use PSP, but I had no problems with 
color and/or contrast adjustment with PS 5.5 or Picture Publisher 8. There 
is no difference in grain between profi and amateur films (for the same 
make and speed).




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.

Flatbed Scanners

[Photoburt]

Thanks for your helpful comments.

Burt


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]

The color quality and noise are also things VueScan can't do
a lot about.

Can you explain these results then:

  http://www.amber.ucsf.edu/~ross/gallery/tech/banding3.html

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.

No Subject

[Hemingway, David J]

What scans 35mm through 6x9 at 4000DPI, has a SCSI and firewire connection,
does medium format strips and will be announced at Photokina
:)


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]

Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone please post the URL of the Group Scan site.

http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/

Regards,
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.

Re: Canoscan FS2710

[Rob Geraghty]

Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the big deal with just cleaning the negative?  I don't get it...

Cleaning the neg doesn't remove scratches - ICE helps a lot in
that respect.

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.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 9/18/2000 9:45:55 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> 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.

Does the scanner make the focusing noise for every frame in the
film holder, or just for the first?

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: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[ILyons]

> 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.

Unless it is explicitly stated it should NOT be viewed in this way then they
will do exactly that.




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: labelling archive cdrs

[Rob Geraghty]

Bob Sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My H-P drive came with a label applicator and "Neato" software to make
> labels.

Has anyone had problems with labelled CDRs in high speed CDROM drives?
(like 40X etc).  Slight offets in the label could cause problems in theory.

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.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Rob Geraghty]

Zeuspaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My experience indicates they are not.  Using Vuescan with a Minolta
> Dimage Multi I occasionally get an out of focus scan.

Again, this is an issue for Ed to address, not me.  I haven't had such
issues with Vuescan and the LS30.

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.