Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Byron wrote: > Yes, probably a factor. Another possibility is the limited bit depth > of the LS30. This would be more of an issue on negs than slides due > to the compressed range of negatives. Surely the bit range used by negs should be in the midrange of possible values precisely because it is compressed? Wouldn't the least significant bits be the dark areas in slides and beyond the brightest parts of negs? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Byron wrote: >Out of focus LS30 scans are quite common on my friends machine. And I've >encountered it many times on other LS30's so they must have some kind of >problem in this area. So out of focus scans don't necessarily mean it is >busted...just try again with your fingers crossed...it eventually seems >to work. I haven't had problems with the autofocus, although some images focus better than others for reasons I can't fathom. Anyway, maybe those people who are having focusing problems should try updating the BIOS and Nikonscan to see if that helps, or try focussing on specific areas of the image using the appropriate tool in Nikonscan. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
At 23:52 29/11/2000 +1000, you wrote: >Sure, but I was thinking of the photomicrographs which were shown a while >ago. The colour neg showed a very large variation in the sizes of dye >clouds and the clouds appeared as very sharply defined grains, while the >Provia was amorphous. My question wasn't really "do the films use multiple >layers" since I already knew all ektachrome films do - it was related more >to the variation in "grain" size which usually is connected with film speed. i cannot comment until i see them. could you provide web address? Do you know the details, how the pics were taken? in general bigger AgX grain is more sensitive, but there is more to that. some companies use different approach, crystals with a core and an outer layer of different composition for example, For that exercise, we may assume that the AgX crystals are of the same size in both, negs and slides. Since negs make an extensive use of DIR couplers, I would expect dye clouds in negs to be smaller and better shaped. > > Our problems with LS30 may be caused by "colimated" light of LEDs, as > > oposite to diffuse illumination in most scanners. In similar manner as in > > enlargers with point light source vs. diffused. > >Maybe, but it doesn't (to me) explain the huge difference in apparent grain >between slide film and negative film. I'm still not convinced. I'll have a look under an optical microscope some time in the future. it would be interesting to check negs and slides exposed through a narrow band filters (to expose a single layer at a time), then see the dyes clouds. Roman
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts
The fact that the service contract is so expensive tells you how reliable Polaroid thinks these things are. I have a similar contract for my Cornerstone p1700 21" monitor, which costs almost as much as the SS4000. The price of the contract? $35. It works the same way. You call them up and tell them it's broken. They send you a new one. When you get it, you send them the broken one. In this case, however, I don't think you have to send the new one back. It's a trade. Obviously, Cornerstone doesn't think their monitor is going to break (what's the break?). Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dana Trout > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts > > > Today I got my scanner back -- Polaroid shipped it to me exactly 3 > weeks after they had recieved it. In the meantime I have scanned about > 50 rolls of film using the loaner they sent me because I subscribed to > the "Gold" extended service contract. $250/year is a noticeable hunk of > change, but being able to continue production for those three weeks > (four, after counting shipping 2nd-day air each way) was important. > > So here's the dilemma: > > 1. Is the scanner going to fail within the next year? > 2. If so, is the prospect of being without it for 4 weeks (3 weeks > repair + 2-day shipping each way) going to make spending $250 look like > a good idea? > > I was "fortunate" in that the scanner died two weeks before its > warranty expired. I could have saved the $250 and had it repaired under > warranty, but then I would have forgone 4 weeks of use _and_ been out > of luck if it fails again within a year. My sense is that these > scanners are not very robust and have a short (measured in months, not > years) mean time between failures. When I bought the scanner I had > foolishly thought that the capital cost would be the total cost of > ownership, but that does not appear to be the case. A friend owns a > Kodak RFS 2035+ and has recently had to send it in for repair. He was > quoted "eight forty-five" for replacing the lamp which sounded just > fine until he learned there was no decimal point in there (i.e., the > price was $845, and he was thinking $8.45). When he learned what was > involved the price didn't sound so unreasonable, but still that's half > of what I paid for the Polaroid SS-4000! > > So, a word of caution: if you are thinking about buying a high-end > scanner be sure to realise that the initial price is not the total > expense. You are either going to have to pay for expensive repairs that > occur with disturbing frequency or you are going to have to get a > service contract. > > Have a nice day, > --Dana
Re: filmscanners: Vusecan problem
At 2:58 PM -0700 11/29/00, Tim Atherton wrote: >S2710. > >I am sure that in the past, when I have scanned slides, I have done so at 48 >bit and then ended up with a Tiff file which is 36 bit in PS (maximum bit >depth on the scanner). > >Now, when I scan, even set at 48bit in vuescan, all I get is a 24 bit file. What version of VueScan are you using? With Version 6.3.13 I can get 48-bit (well, really 36-bit) files with my FS2710 (Mac G4, OS 9.0.4). At least the file is 52 Mb and Photoshop says it is 16-bit., so I'm assuming it really is. The earlier versions worked also for 48-bit, but I haven't tried V. 6.3.14. Regards, Roger Smith
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts
Today I got my scanner back -- Polaroid shipped it to me exactly 3 weeks after they had recieved it. In the meantime I have scanned about 50 rolls of film using the loaner they sent me because I subscribed to the "Gold" extended service contract. $250/year is a noticeable hunk of change, but being able to continue production for those three weeks (four, after counting shipping 2nd-day air each way) was important. So here's the dilemma: 1. Is the scanner going to fail within the next year? 2. If so, is the prospect of being without it for 4 weeks (3 weeks repair + 2-day shipping each way) going to make spending $250 look like a good idea? I was "fortunate" in that the scanner died two weeks before its warranty expired. I could have saved the $250 and had it repaired under warranty, but then I would have forgone 4 weeks of use _and_ been out of luck if it fails again within a year. My sense is that these scanners are not very robust and have a short (measured in months, not years) mean time between failures. When I bought the scanner I had foolishly thought that the capital cost would be the total cost of ownership, but that does not appear to be the case. A friend owns a Kodak RFS 2035+ and has recently had to send it in for repair. He was quoted "eight forty-five" for replacing the lamp which sounded just fine until he learned there was no decimal point in there (i.e., the price was $845, and he was thinking $8.45). When he learned what was involved the price didn't sound so unreasonable, but still that's half of what I paid for the Polaroid SS-4000! So, a word of caution: if you are thinking about buying a high-end scanner be sure to realise that the initial price is not the total expense. You are either going to have to pay for expensive repairs that occur with disturbing frequency or you are going to have to get a service contract. Have a nice day, --Dana
Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others
on 11/29/00 3:47 PM, photoscientia at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > Can I steer this back to monitor calibration please? > > I've been experimenting further with dithered tones, and I'd like your > collective > opinion on these little > 'greyscales' that I've come up with. > They're very small little GIFs, so I've taken the liberty of attaching them. > > There's a greyscale GIF for each of 8 target gammas, in 0.2 steps from 1.0 to > 2.4. > The idea is to get the closest match between the inner and outer squares. > The best method is to view them from a distance of 3 or 4 ft (1 to 1.5 > metres), and > half close your eyes to blur the dithered centre square; then you can see if > the > tones match more easily. > The square with the number in it is a 'key' tone, and is the one most critical > to > assessing the gamma, but the other 3 squares should be a good match as well. > Oh, yes. They must be viewed at 1:1 scale as well, otherwise they won't work. > > I know the idea isn't original, but I've only ever seen single tone examples > before. > These cover a wider brightness range, and I think they should give a pretty > good > gamma match, or indication of system gamma, within the limits of simple visual > comparison. > > I don't have a huge range of systems and monitors to test them on, so I hope > some of > you will act as guinea pigs, sorry, beta testers, for me. > I'm not asking you to change the settings of your monitor or video card, but I > hope > that a lot of you reading this list will know the gamma of your system fairly > accurately. > If you could check the relevant GIF and some of the others against your known > system, > and give me some feedback, I'd be most grateful. > > Thanks for taking the time to read this. > > Regards,Pete. > I thought the gamma for my monitor was about 1.5 based on the test at: http://www.zonezero.com/calibration/english.html Using your test, however, it appears to be about 1.8 - 2.0. My monitor is a NEC XV15. Don't know if that helps any. --Berry
Re: filmscanners: Vusecan problem
Hi Tim, Maybe it is a bug in Ed's latest release. I suggest you send him an e-mail and see what is reply is. Dale - Original Message - From: "Tim Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:58 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vusecan problem > I've got a problem with scanning at higher bits with Vuescan on my Canon > FS2710. > > I am sure that in the past, when I have scanned slides, I have done so at 48 > bit and then ended up with a Tiff file which is 36 bit in PS (maximum bit > depth on the scanner). > > Now, when I scan, even set at 48bit in vuescan, all I get is a 24 bit file. > > Surely I must be able to get at least a 36 bit file? > > > Tim A >
RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
> Johnny, > > You got me on this one. I understand "dust and crud" and "limited > Dmax" but > what are Newton's rings? > Ahhh - you can tell those who are old darkroom workers and those who aren't! (now ask Johnny or Tony why unsharp mask is called that when it makes things sharp...!) Tim A PS, those little flimsy holder for the film that comes with most scanners seem to get rid of newton rings
RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
> Tim, I'm looking at the same machines. I can tell you one thing from my > experience with the 600 dpi Microtek I'm using right now... 1200 > dpi (a true > 1200, I mean) is going to be *plenty* for 4x5. Even at 600 dpi I can print > 14x11 images which will make most non-conoisseurs go 'wow' and certainly > beat my 35mm images scanned at 4000 dpi enlarged to the same size into a > cocked hat. I think it's the lack of grain that means you get > more bang for > your dpi in the larger formats. > Every now and then I get to use a 1200dpi Agfa duoscan and I love the extra detail I can get from a 4x5. BTW, on these lower end (albeit 48bit 1200dpi scanners) the manufacturers don't even seem to give dmax - which would be useful, but I'll have to double check. Tim A
Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
- Original Message - From: "Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:34 AM Subject: RE: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > > Our problems with LS30 may be caused by "colimated" light of LEDs, as > oposite to diffuse illumination in most scanners. In similar manner as in > enlargers with point light source vs. diffused. > Yes, probably a factor. Another possibility is the limited bit depth of the LS30. This would be more of an issue on negs than slides due to the compressed range of negatives. Byron
Re: Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:25 PM Subject: Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > > And with what I have I should be > > able to get the LS-30 to produce a scan that is in focus. > > However if you are doing this and scans are plainly out of focus although you have AF turned > on, it's possible the scanner is busted. > Out of focus LS30 scans are quite common on my friends machine. And I've encountered it many times on other LS30's so they must have some kind of problem in this area. So out of focus scans don't necessarily mean it is busted...just try again with your fingers crossed...it eventually seems to work. Byron
Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
Newton rings are circular contact marks that appear when using a glass negative carrier to hold your negative under an enlarger. Does anyone remember what an "enlarger" is. >what are Newton's rings? <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Fine Art Photography: http://BermanArt.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
Johnny, Tim, The stated DMAX for the Perfection 1640 ($400) is 3.2. I don't have a lot of data yet, but based on experience scanning very dark images on Kodachrome 120, it may be that good (for a cheapie) or close to it. As you indicate, this is really a "dual 800" matrix CCD array, but the scans look much better than the Epson Expression ($1000) 1600, and approach the 1600 dpi resolution I've gotten from commercial scans. Hope this helps. Jim
Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - newton rings
> (the biggest problems with my flatbed are (1) Newton's rings, (2) dust and > crud and (3) limited Dmax... very easy to blow your highlights. > I worked for a design company many years ago who had a high end flatbed scanner. They had a sheet of Newton Glass (I think it was called that) which was oiled and placed on top of the 4x5 slide. As far as I can remember it eliminated all traces of Newton's rings. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C _) ) --- ' __ /
Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
- Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Filmscanners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions > (the biggest problems with my flatbed are (1) Newton's rings, (2) dust and > crud and (3) limited Dmax... very easy to blow your highlights. Johnny, You got me on this one. I understand "dust and crud" and "limited Dmax" but what are Newton's rings? Thanks BK
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Frank wrote: > I understand your explanation perfectly, but it shows that in > very contrasty situations, you're better off chosing negatives > than positives because the positives will be more likely to > saturate in both directions, the negative capturing more of > the total range. Except that scanned negatives look like crap on my scanner, so what good does the increased tonal range do for me? *sigh* Obviously I should give up on the whole idea of having a digital darkroom. It's all too damned expensive and all too hard. I definitely won't ever suggest to anyone else to buy a Nikon LS30 or any other Nikon scanner. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: cd storage
Here is some info I posted on another list, based on a recent workshop I went on. This was on the preservation of modern information carriers (optical and magnetic media) run by two conservation scientists from the Canadian Conservation Institute: But basically, while testing is still being done, the following generally hold true; Best quality dyes and metallic layer in the disk - gold and phthalocyanine eg Kodak Gold Ultima and one or two other brands. Some are also marketed as "archival" this may not mean anything more, just marketed as such. Though some makers may be making the protective top lacquer layer of toughened material to resist scratching. Generally, you get what you pay for - better quality control, disks that are properly balanced (+ less read error) etc. Keep in reasonably low humidity and temperature. 10 to 20c is good (not below -10c) and RH 20-50% (not lower than 10%) No great cycling in either temperature or humidity, so constant. Keep in the jewel case( polystyrene, polypropylene or polycarbonate), on edge, no inserts if possible (not acid free). No labels etc (label and glue can cause damage, and labels, even circular, increased read errors dramatically). Non solvent marker if necessary on the case, and if on disk, only on the very inner circle where the serial number is. Store out of light - ie in the dark. Don't scratch them! Also, how they are burned also makes a big difference. Higher speed burning/write can lead to more errors. So 1 or 2x write is often better. Burn to ISO 9660 or whatever it is. In fact one of the biggest areas with longevity apart from the above was error level on the recording side, which depended on a number of factors and got very complicated. Depending on your burning software, running the test disk option actually tests it AFTER burning, to let you know how much error there was (there is always some error). Also, over time, CD burners deteriorate mechanically, introducing more error. So, that's a quick overview. If there is stuff I forgot, I'll pass it along They are still testing accelerated aging in different conditions, but I think they were figuring at least 50-100 years following these type of guidelines. Of course other factors come into effect such as machines to read them and so on, but that is a slightly different topic. Finally, make one for use and one or two for backup, stored separately - fire, flood, earthquake and theft/vandalism cause more damage than ageing! Tim A > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bertho Boman > Sent: November 24, 2000 12:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Museum Acceptance > > > Since we store photos on CDs, could you please summarize CD > storage life and > give suggestions how to extend the life of them. > Bertho Boman > = > > Tim Atherton wrote: > > > I was on a workshop a couple of weeks ago on the preservation > and care of > > modern information carriers (ie optical disks and magnetic tape > etc), run by > > two conservation scientists from the Canadian Conservation > Institution - a > > Government setup, closely allied with the National Archives of Canada. > > > > First, learning about longevity of CD's was interesting in itself. > -Original Message- > From: Julie C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: November 28, 2000 5:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [DS] cd storage > > > Hi, > > I know one or two of the lists I read have had discussions about > this subject. I would like to know how the Kodak CD-R Ultima 80 > is for storage? It says on the package that it is silver and > gold. What was the verdict on the best cd's for storage? > > Thanks, Jules_C > > > > To unsubscribe from this list send blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To receive the daily digest, register at http://www.topica.com > and use the 'my topica' page to set your preferences > > ___ > T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 > Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics >
filmscanners: RE: cd storage
I should add that these were the two guys who are actually conducting scientific archival testing (and obviously consulting with colleagues worldwide) on CD's for the CCI, which was once part of the National Archives of Canada, but is now an independent government funded setup. Tim A
Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others
Hi all, Can I steer this back to monitor calibration please? I've been experimenting further with dithered tones, and I'd like your collective opinion on these little 'greyscales' that I've come up with. They're very small little GIFs, so I've taken the liberty of attaching them. There's a greyscale GIF for each of 8 target gammas, in 0.2 steps from 1.0 to 2.4. The idea is to get the closest match between the inner and outer squares. The best method is to view them from a distance of 3 or 4 ft (1 to 1.5 metres), and half close your eyes to blur the dithered centre square; then you can see if the tones match more easily. The square with the number in it is a 'key' tone, and is the one most critical to assessing the gamma, but the other 3 squares should be a good match as well. Oh, yes. They must be viewed at 1:1 scale as well, otherwise they won't work. I know the idea isn't original, but I've only ever seen single tone examples before. These cover a wider brightness range, and I think they should give a pretty good gamma match, or indication of system gamma, within the limits of simple visual comparison. I don't have a huge range of systems and monitors to test them on, so I hope some of you will act as guinea pigs, sorry, beta testers, for me. I'm not asking you to change the settings of your monitor or video card, but I hope that a lot of you reading this list will know the gamma of your system fairly accurately. If you could check the relevant GIF and some of the others against your known system, and give me some feedback, I'd be most grateful. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Regards,Pete.
Re: filmscanners: scan dual-scan dual II
Hi Here are a few examples of scans from a Canoscan FS2710 if it's of any help. http://homepage.eircom.net/~ricwalsh/ -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C _) ) --- ' __ / > > Is there much improvement between Minolta Scan Dual and Scan Dual II ? I'm > considering purchasing the Dual II or the Canon FS 2710 as they seem to be > pretty close in specs. If not one of them maybe the Minolta Elite as it also > has D Ice. > > Any suggestions, comments on the about the scanners mentioned would be > appreciated. > Thank you > >
filmscanners: Vusecan problem
I've got a problem with scanning at higher bits with Vuescan on my Canon FS2710. I am sure that in the past, when I have scanned slides, I have done so at 48 bit and then ended up with a Tiff file which is 36 bit in PS (maximum bit depth on the scanner). Now, when I scan, even set at 48bit in vuescan, all I get is a 24 bit file. Surely I must be able to get at least a 36 bit file? Tim A
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
> Am I barking up the wrong tree here? In theory, no. But in practice there's no apparent lack of tonal refinement when scans from colour neg are printed (we are talking working with 16bit precision, I hope, not 8 bit). Though you can see a difference in tonality between fast and slow colour neg. Remember everything ends up compressed into a minimal reflectance range on paper, whether it started out as slide or CN. CN is at least matched to this. Slide range seems to pose much more of a problem to scanners than CN's relative lack of range, in practice. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
> Yeah, but isn't that because most negative films have tons of > latitude? One could be off a stop or three and still get a > useable image? Useable, perhaps, but far from optimal. 'Latitude' is really just a side effect of the far greater dynamic range of col.neg. materials than slide. Personally it is that which I find most useful - real-life scenes seldom fit comfortably within the ~4stops available with tranny. And the other nightmare attribute of tranny - sensitivity to colour temp - is also a consequence of the inherently high contrast. Transparency is designed to mimic scene brightness ratios when projected, whereas neg is matched to paper reflectance range. So shooting tranny with the aim of printing really is doing things the hard way. It has been traditional because PMT scanners could not cope with CN well in the past, and materials like KR64 gave better colour. But modern CN plus DIY CCD scanners gives a whole new degree of freedom. That has been/is my main interest in scanning : being able to shoot in conditions which would defeat transparency, and supply repro quality output that will satisfy the pickiest art eds. It can be done, and I just saw a published feature yesterday which I shot on CN in Iceland earlier this year. There is no deficit in terms of printed gamut nor sharpness, and shadow detail is better, plus there are several photos which would have been impossible on tranny without a lot of fill-in lighting. And when it comes to shooting in tungsten, fluorescents, or mixed light, CN is miraculously easy: just shoot it and rebalance when scanning. This is /so/ much easier than having to bracket on CC filters as well as exposure, to cope with tranny+fluorescents (FL-D filters are seldom much help), plus of course 30M+5R or whatever loses a ton of speed and I can hardly see through the damn v/f. For studio, though, where lighting is precisely controlled so colour temp and contrast are within the photographer's control, I can see many people would still prefer tranny because of the tight colour reference. You can see at a glance if colour is right, which is impossible with neg. But then with neg you fix it later. However there's a not unreasonable 'fear' aspect to deferring such important stuff until the set has been broken and everyone has gone home. Tranny is the conservative, safe option. > Postive film really wants the exposure to be right on, but is far > more accurate in reproduction of the color information. I have to disagree with the 'accuracy' part of this. CN is no less inherently accurate nowadays, but realising the potential depends on the scanning stage. With tranny, this is a reprographic proposition, match A to B. With neg it lacks fixed references and there are more variables, more dependence on interpretation. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
> And with what I have I should be > able to get the LS-30 to produce a scan that is in focus. A couple of points. First that scanning loses some sharpness due to aliasing, and you should expect to apply a small amount of unsharp masking to retrieve crispness. However if you are doing this and scans are plainly out of focus although you have AF turned on, it's possible the scanner is busted. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
on 29/11/00 2:35 pm, Tim Atherton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > All are the newer generation scanners coming out which are (supposedly) 1200 > dpi (apart from the 1640), capable of 48 bits. And they range from quite > cheap to reasonably cheap! ($245 -599 CDN). I'm looking at scanning B&W, > colour negs and transparencies, mostly for Inkjet printing up to 81/2 x 11 > and hopefully up to 13x19 for some. And providing smallish files for in > house productions (proposals etc) + some web use. Tim, I'm looking at the same machines. I can tell you one thing from my experience with the 600 dpi Microtek I'm using right now... 1200 dpi (a true 1200, I mean) is going to be *plenty* for 4x5. Even at 600 dpi I can print 14x11 images which will make most non-conoisseurs go 'wow' and certainly beat my 35mm images scanned at 4000 dpi enlarged to the same size into a cocked hat. I think it's the lack of grain that means you get more bang for your dpi in the larger formats. BTW can you point me at the cheapest sources you have found for these scanners? (the biggest problems with my flatbed are (1) Newton's rings, (2) dust and crud and (3) limited Dmax... very easy to blow your highlights. What are the Dmax figures for the scanners you named? -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions
Does anyone have any opinions on the following flatbed transparency scanners for 4x5 scanning? All are the newer generation scanners coming out which are (supposedly) 1200 dpi (apart from the 1640), capable of 48 bits. And they range from quite cheap to reasonably cheap! ($245 -599 CDN). I'm looking at scanning B&W, colour negs and transparencies, mostly for Inkjet printing up to 81/2 x 11 and hopefully up to 13x19 for some. And providing smallish files for in house productions (proposals etc) + some web use. And, having just had to buy a new 4x5 lens and a new printer, am definitely on a budget hence looking at these. So, Ed? anyone?... Acer 1240UT Scanner Epson Perfection 1640SU Photo Scanner Epson Perfection 1240U Photo Scanner Microtek Scanmaker 4600 Scanner + Microtek Scanmaker 4600 transparency adapter Thanks Tim A
filmscanners: scan dual-scan dual II
Is there much improvement between Minolta Scan Dual and Scan Dual II ? I'm considering purchasing the Dual II or the Canon FS 2710 as they seem to be pretty close in specs. If not one of them maybe the Minolta Elite as it also has D Ice. Any suggestions, comments on the about the scanners mentioned would be appreciated. Thank you
filmscanners: Vuescan ~ manual exposure
I was playing with the newest distribution of Vuescan last night, trying to determine how and when VS determined the exposure. I had a difficult time with consistent determinations ... it would seemingly determine the exposure (RGB and IR) only if I asked for 'scan|device'. What I was trying to do is get VS to modify its "autoexposure" based on the cropped selection ... as if I could point "autoexposure" at a negative's "whitepoint" ... and then choose 'preview|device'. (... or for a negative, should I point the exposure at black shadows? ...) Similarly ... I couldn't get "manual focus" to work ... again trying to get it to focus while paying attention to the cropped selection. The "focus number" would read 3 significant digits (e.g., 0.281), but would not change if I moved the crop and 'device|focus'. Ideally, I'd like to determine best focus and exposure during 'device|preview' and when I select 'scan|device', have VS do nothing other than scan and write the RAW file. BTW ... VS worked really cool with PS6 open ... if I subsequently wrote a cropped file, Photoshop would open it automatically ... and waited for me to indicate the proper profile was embedded ... it couldn't have worked much better if VS was a twain plugin :o) shAf :o) Win/98 Photoshop 6 Nikon LS-2000
Re[4]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Rob, > If the scratch is really sharp, it's the image > which is the problem. Excellent. Scratching things is what I do best. Guy
Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Mike, > Back to your original problem... Why don't you at least try shooting it on Reala? I had already written it down and plan to buy some on my next trip to the "toy" store. I am always willing to try a different film and see what I come up with. I have plenty of tungsten photo floods I can use and besides, it is fun to do something different. As a side note, our business did a total nose dive in the last two months and my 4 page color brochure got cut to one double sided page. I am off to my little studio to take some shots of cans and jars. Take care and thank you for the reply. Guy
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
I understand your explanation perfectly, but it shows that in very contrasty situations, you're better off chosing negatives than positives because the positives will be more likely to saturate in both directions, the negative capturing more of the total range. When I am shooting slides, there are just lots of situations where I don't even bother pressing the trigger because I know details in shadows or highlights simply won't be there. I can shoot much more casually with negative film and know I'll get something I can work with. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > > > >Rob Wrote: > >> I presume you meant that slides have a greater density range than negs? > Frank wrote: > >I actually meant that they can capture a greater density range. In other > >words, the density range is compressed more on negatives than slides. > > Ah, OK. Again, this is actually a reason why slides *ought* to > scan better > than negs, aside from issues with noise. If a scanner CCD is a reasonably > linear device, and its range of possible sensitivity is fixed, then as > far as I can see a scan from a slide should be more accurate than a scan > from a neg. The reason is that a slide's density lies across a wider range > of the values the CCD can read, where a neg is across a much > smaller range. > If the relationship between the analogue input and the A/D > output is fixed, > then the output from a slide should be better because it applies to more > bits in the A/D. Presumably the output from a neg must be decompressed, > and the accuracy of that decompression will be limited by the > smaller range > of initial values. Yes, I know that the slide is more likely to result > in shadow detail lost in the noise floor, but most of the result should > have more detail and accuracy. This would be a whole lot easier > to explain > with pictures! > > Rob > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > >
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
My SS4000 is silky smooth with negatives. But the holder for the negatives is a real pain to work with. Another reason for using slides for SS4000 owners: ten times more convenient. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of bjs > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:54 PM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > > > > I personally find the grain in scanned negs ugly - even in > Reala - and it's > > frustrating that a neg which looks fine as a photographic print > is really > > hard to get to look as good as a scan. Slides are much simpler to work > > with, at least in my experience with the LS30. > > > > Rob > > I think the LS30 has a lot to do with that. My friends LS30 has similar > results and he prefers slides for similar reasons. But other scanners are > kinder to negatives. One of the many things to consider when selecting a > scanner. The perfect one hasn't been made yet. > > Cheers, > Byron >
Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Guy Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I may do that, but the LS-30 should be able to do the job. That's > what we bought it for. I talked my boss into it, so now I need to > produce. OK, here's a suggestion which was made to me when I had concerns about focus. Score a very fine line on a piece of blank film (say the blank end of a strip) and scan it. If the scratch is really sharp, it's the image which is the problem. > Nikon Scan 2.5 and will be jacking into Vuescan soon. There's a focussing fix in Nikonscan 2.51 but having said that I have NOT yet upgraded (since it requires flashing the scanner BIOS) and my scanner focusses just fine. Try using the "focus on an area" feature in Nikonscan and click in the middle of the frame to see if it makes any difference. Rob
Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Roman Kielich® <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > negs and slides are very alike. Both use silver halides, and multiple layer > design (2-3 layers for one band, varied speed). Even films like Astia 100 - > 3 yellow, 3 magenta, 3 cyan, plus auxiliary. This is a common concept. Sure, but I was thinking of the photomicrographs which were shown a while ago. The colour neg showed a very large variation in the sizes of dye clouds and the clouds appeared as very sharply defined grains, while the Provia was amorphous. My question wasn't really "do the films use multiple layers" since I already knew all ektachrome films do - it was related more to the variation in "grain" size which usually is connected with film speed. > Our problems with LS30 may be caused by "colimated" light of LEDs, as > oposite to diffuse illumination in most scanners. In similar manner as in > enlargers with point light source vs. diffused. Maybe, but it doesn't (to me) explain the huge difference in apparent grain between slide film and negative film. Rob
Re: filmscanners: What would you recommend?
Theo Heindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perfection 1640 Photo is on my short list for quite a wile but have been > wondering about the stated resolution (1600x3200). I need a scanner > which does 35 mm slides & negatives (my hobby) and microfiche to scan & > store my spar parts on the PC (for bussiness) A fellow gold coaster! Hi Theo. I don't have any info about the 1640 other than what's on Epson's site, but you might want to have a talk to the scanner place in Melbourne www.scannerplace.com.au and ask them about scanning microfiche. I expect the sort of resolution required would be a challenge for any flatbed. I would guess that the Epson's maximum useful resolution is probably 1600dpi. If you want to see a Nikon LS30 in action for scanning 35mm film, I have one. Regards, Rob
Re: filmscanners: cd storage
Alan, I recently purchased the Complete National Geographics 31 CDs of all of their 110 years of magazines plus the set of 8 CDs of every pull-out map that they have published. My Yamaha CD Reader/Writer has a Hell of a job reading the Instalation Disc for the complete set of maps. All the other CDs read just fine. Both sets were brand new unopened and not a visible scratch on the dodgy CD. Chris. - Original Message - From: "Alan Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:16 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: cd storage > Dear Jerry, > Also, in my experience of writing & using CD-Rs, there's > much more variation between drives than between discs. > Faulty discs can be readable on some drives and not others. > > So did they use some top class scientific equipment and > actually measure the vital statistics of the written data? > Or did they use retail consumer writing equipment for the > tests, in which case how did they eliminate variation > between drives?
RE: filmscanners: cd storage
Some quick answers from my memory below: > -Original Message- > From: Alan Tyson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: cd storage > > Dear Jerry, > > It would be fascinating to see the list, but even more > interesting to read the details of the results. I assume the > article's only available in Dutch, is it? [Oostrom, Jerry] yes > I hope they used very big sample sizes. I should expect the > failure rates to be so low as to need samples of hundreds > per brand. I should be most interested to hear what sort of > failure rates they found. Did the article specify the rates? > It would give us an idea of just how big a gamble we're > taking with our image storage. [Oostrom, Jerry] I suspect the rates are not that high. Have to look up the article. > Also, in my experience of writing & using CD-Rs, there's > much more variation between drives than between discs. > Faulty discs can be readable on some drives and not others. [Oostrom, Jerry] They tested with at least three consumer drives. A philips capable of 8x speed, an HP capable of 10x speed and a plextor capable of 12x speed. > So did they use some top class scientific equipment and > actually measure the vital statistics of the written data? > Or did they use retail consumer writing equipment for the > tests, in which case how did they eliminate variation > between drives? [Oostrom, Jerry] They used equipment consumers would also be using. > BTW > > The data are in the chemically sensitive layer on the > non-label (bottom) side, so a label will make no difference > to UV exposure. The reflective metal layer already offers > perfect protection from the top. [Oostrom, Jerry] Perhaps for good ones. I've seen more than one disc through which you could see light shine through. These were not perfectly protected in my opinion. Anyway the magazine said nothing about the ceramic protecting the disc (that was my extrapolation / hunch), but it said that labels were a good way to protect the disc especially towards the outside ring from UV light. The outside boundary of the disc was said to be especially vulnerable to light. My interpretation: this will be true for CDs not stored in total darkness, e.g. a spindle where the CDs are stored vertically and the spindle casing is shine through plastic. Any 'perfect' metal protection on one side of a disc will 'perfectly' reflect UV to the other side of the neighboring disc. Do you agree this is a possibility? [Oostrom, Jerry] Anyway, I don't think the test would have been done with 100s of CDs per series of a brand and expensive scientific equipment as the magazine itself is targeted for the Netherlands (perhaps Belgium too, 2 tiny countries) only, the magazine does not contain a lot of 3rd party commercial advertising and the test seemed to be a national one (i.e. I thought the results would only have been printed in the dutch version of the magazine). That severely limits the amount of money they can devote to this test. But, perhaps the results can still be used as an indication for which CDs to use. And perhaps somebody from Germany noticed whether the same test appeared in the Stiftungs Warentest (it's called roughly like that I believe). If that is so, the targeted audience was much larger and chances are that the resources devoted to the test were much larger then if it were only for the ducth market. Greetings, Jerry.
RE: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Rob, negs and slides are very alike. Both use silver halides, and multiple layer design (2-3 layers for one band, varied speed). Even films like Astia 100 - 3 yellow, 3 magenta, 3 cyan, plus auxiliary. This is a common concept. Spectral sensitivity varies between films, so the spectral properties of an image dyes. However, for a given information content, negs carry more clouds - due to masking dyes. In a slide film components are colorless, in negs they are colored. So, even if the component does not form some part of the image (sort of negative to negative), it can be seen as a part of an orange mask. To be exact - green-sensitive layer with yellow colored magenta forming coupler, or red sensitive magenta colored cyan formed coupler. But it is my speculation. For the record - the excellent film Reala does have 4th (cyan sensitive) layer which is image forming, it is not filtering layer as some insist. It does change the spectral sensitivity of the film to more accurately mimic a human vision, or make it more forgiving for illumination mismatches. Our problems with LS30 may be caused by "colimated" light of LEDs, as oposite to diffuse illumination in most scanners. In similar manner as in enlargers with point light source vs. diffused. Roman At 17:43 29/11/2000 +1000, you wrote: >Guy wrote: > > Yeah, but isn't that because most negative films have tons of > > latitude? > >I'm not sure if anyone with more knowledge of film chemistry confirmed this >suspicion of mine - that the graininess of print film of a given rated speed >compared to slide film was precisely due to multiple emulsion layers with >varying grain sizes (and speeds)? > >Rob > > >Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://wordweb.com "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: cd storage
Dear Jerry, It would be fascinating to see the list, but even more interesting to read the details of the results. I assume the article's only available in Dutch, is it? I hope they used very big sample sizes. I should expect the failure rates to be so low as to need samples of hundreds per brand. I should be most interested to hear what sort of failure rates they found. Did the article specify the rates? It would give us an idea of just how big a gamble we're taking with our image storage. Also, in my experience of writing & using CD-Rs, there's much more variation between drives than between discs. Faulty discs can be readable on some drives and not others. So did they use some top class scientific equipment and actually measure the vital statistics of the written data? Or did they use retail consumer writing equipment for the tests, in which case how did they eliminate variation between drives? BTW The data are in the chemically sensitive layer on the non-label (bottom) side, so a label will make no difference to UV exposure. The reflective metal layer already offers perfect protection from the top. > good way to store the CD-Rs was in complete darkness (seems trivial). If > this was not going to happen then CD-Rs could benefit from CD-labels as > extra protection from light. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: Oostrom, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:57 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: cd storage > Coincidentally, > a magazine in my country (consumentenbond, roughly translated as consumer > league) that tests all kinds of stuff just tested some 50 types of CD-Rs,
Re: filmscanners: saving rawfiles in Vuescan
In a message dated 11/29/2000 3:30:12 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm working with HP S20 and Vuescan > I need to save rawfiles (scan0001.tif+ ...) of both color and BW negs for > further work. Do I really have to save in 48bits format? I suspect you could save the BW negs in 16 bit format. You should definitely save the color raw files in 48-bit format. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: saving rawfiles in Vuescan
Hi all! I'm working with HP S20 and Vuescan I need to save rawfiles (scan0001.tif+ ...) of both color and BW negs for further work. Do I really have to save in 48bits format? Thanks for answering Didier
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
>Rob Wrote: >> I presume you meant that slides have a greater density range than negs? Frank wrote: >I actually meant that they can capture a greater density range. In other >words, the density range is compressed more on negatives than slides. Ah, OK. Again, this is actually a reason why slides *ought* to scan better than negs, aside from issues with noise. If a scanner CCD is a reasonably linear device, and its range of possible sensitivity is fixed, then as far as I can see a scan from a slide should be more accurate than a scan from a neg. The reason is that a slide's density lies across a wider range of the values the CCD can read, where a neg is across a much smaller range. If the relationship between the analogue input and the A/D output is fixed, then the output from a slide should be better because it applies to more bits in the A/D. Presumably the output from a neg must be decompressed, and the accuracy of that decompression will be limited by the smaller range of initial values. Yes, I know that the slide is more likely to result in shadow detail lost in the noise floor, but most of the result should have more detail and accuracy. This would be a whole lot easier to explain with pictures! Maybe if I explain with simplified numbers. My apologies in advance if the numbers are silly, I'm just using them for demonstration. Suppose that the range of densities in a slide are from 0 to 3.5 and in a neg from 1 to 2.5. Suppose that we have a monochrome CCD which feeds into an 8 bit A/D. A density of 0 is 255, and a density of 3 is 0. You can see immediately that any detail in the slide darker than a density of 3 will be lost. But of the remaining values, the slide returns 218 possible values while the neg returns only 109 possible values. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: cd storage
Coincidentally, a magazine in my country (consumentenbond, roughly translated as consumer league) that tests all kinds of stuff just tested some 50 types of CD-Rs, with type I mean a series of a brand. In this list there were also Kodak CD-Rs, but if I remember correctly the 'Ceramic' type of the Kodak CDs was tested as the best of the Kodaks. In their test they mentioned that for the durability test they had put the CD-Rs under a UV-light. They said that a good way to store the CD-Rs was in complete darkness (seems trivial). If this was not going to happen then CD-Rs could benefit from CD-labels as extra protection from light. Perhaps aside from dye characteristics and such that the 'Ceramic' version benefited in the longevity test from the Ceramic acting as an extra light stopping shield. About gold and silver: the magazine had some explanation about the colors green and blue as coming from (gold + bue dye layer) and respectively (silver + blue dye layer) and told that for some time it was thought that green was better than blue. Their tests showed this to be largely independant of each other: there were a few good blue ones and one of the worst tested CDs was green, but as I remember a majority of the good tested ones were indeed green. I don't remember that previous threads on CD-longevity had info on the Kodak CD-R Ultima 80. Also in a another follow-up TDK was mentioned. The magazine had one good type and one lesser type of the TDKs, which was also the cheaper version. If any one is interested I can look up the magazine and e.g. put the top 10 in a mail to this list, though I warn you that the series/designation of a brand may differ between countries and that the consumentenbond is not specialised in computer related tests. It's a general magazine for consumer products. Jerry Oostrom http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom > -Original Message- > From: Rob Geraghty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: cd storage > > Jules wrote: > >I would like to know how the Kodak CD-R Ultima 80 is for storage? > > Is that an 80min CDR as opposed to a normal 74min CDR? I wouldn't suggest > using anything other than 74min CDRs as a matter of course - they might > work on your CDR drive, and they might work on your current CDROM drive, > but there's a good chance they won't work reliably on other drives. It's > better and cheaper to stick to 74min (650MB) CDRs. > > > It says on the package that it is silver and gold. What > > was the verdict on the best cd's for storage? > > There's a huge amount of debate about brands and types, but it seems to > be generally agreed that gold CDRs will last longer than silver. However > it seems to me that the stability of the dye layer is the real issue, so > I'm dubious. I generally use Kodak Gold Ultima (gold not silver) CDRs > though. [cut]
RE: Re[2]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
Guy wrote: > Yeah, but isn't that because most negative films have tons of > latitude? I'm not sure if anyone with more knowledge of film chemistry confirmed this suspicion of mine - that the graininess of print film of a given rated speed compared to slide film was precisely due to multiple emulsion layers with varying grain sizes (and speeds)? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.
- Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:54 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see. > I personally find the grain in scanned negs ugly - even in Reala - and it's > frustrating that a neg which looks fine as a photographic print is really > hard to get to look as good as a scan. Slides are much simpler to work > with, at least in my experience with the LS30. > > Rob I think the LS30 has a lot to do with that. My friends LS30 has similar results and he prefers slides for similar reasons. But other scanners are kinder to negatives. One of the many things to consider when selecting a scanner. The perfect one hasn't been made yet. Cheers, Byron
