Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > Well, not really. The oversampling business in CD players is mostly > > a method to save as much as maybe a dime in their production costs to > > reduce the cost of the analog output reconstruction filter. > > Regardless of why they use a particular technique, the fact is that a filter > *is* required on the output of the D/A to remove the harmonics which would > otherwise degrade the quality of the output. Granted, a digital image is > in the digital domain but when you display it - it a way you're creating > a D/A process. I'm simply wondering whether filtering on the output would > be useful. Presumably it's similar to people using gaussian blur to make > the grain less ugly, but perhaps gaussian blur isn't the best way to do > it. The equivalent (as such) of the reconstruction filter would be a kind of blurring that would eliminate being able to see the pixels. Mike K.
Re: filmscanners: Saving Scans
Chris McBrien wrote: > > David, > I can't stress enough the need to create and organise folders > and file names. > > I stores the images from my digital camera in the form of... > 01-Garage,jpg > 02-Cat.jpg > et cetera > > This method does have the upper limit of 99 images, so if > you're going to go above that on a regular basis, then add another > leading zero to give a name of... > 001-Garage.jpg FWIW - For digital camera photos, I use the program "PIE", or "digital PIE" that's a shareware program from someone in Germany if I recall correctly. Anyway, one of it's main features is that one can select all photos in a directory and auto-rename them with the date/time they were taken (using the data in the photo, NOT the date of the file). It supports various digital camera formats, including the Nikon 950 that I use (actually my wife's camera). It also does it in such a fashion that the files "sort" in time-order. So it doesn't index the contents (neither does the camera's numerical filenames), but a glance does tell exactly when the photo was taken. Mike K.
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Further, at least at first,the > > "oversampling" CD players were low end units > > That's not quite true, they were mid range units, and it was because the > initial interpolation filters were quite bad, and were only 2x to 4x, and > certainly did not meet the audio quality that was achievable without them. > > > As to complexity, only in > > terms of the number of parts. Such filter designs are almost cookbook > and > > are trivial to model in spice (a computer program for those who don't > know) > > variants. > > Have YOU ever designed an output filter for a high end audio D/A not using > an interpolation filter? I've been designing (and have a very high end > analog engineer who designs) them for 20 years, and they are NOT trivial > nor are they cookbook. They are in fact an art, and not many people can > design them well. I stand corrected. My memory could swear that when they came out they were at the low end, and not at the high end. Note that I'm talking about the time when they came out and were the rage. Your comment about filters not being done very well is something I'd take to comfirm that they were low end players. But I defer to your more vivid recollection of the time. I only bought CD players back then (including the first model out, the CDP-101 as I recall, made by Sony). Mike K.
Re: filmscanners: words of wisdom from St Timo snipped from NG
Most of Timo's mistaken impressions about scanning negatives come from his trying to use a UMAX PowerLook III scanner to scan negatives. He was spectacularly unsuccessful doing this, and he concluded that it was therefore impossible to scan negatives with consumer film scanners. I sent him an e-mail earlier today suggesting that he try VueScan with his PowerLook III. VueScan does a nice job scanning negatives with the PowerLook III, and is an existance proof that it's possible. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
> I use Vuescan to scan > b&w negs on my Sprintscan 4000, and I suspect I need to make some > adjustments. What is the best way to begin? The scans that show > posterization have extreme ranges of light to dark. Is posterization > unavoidable on these types of images? No, it shouldn't happen. I would start by re-scanning an offending neg, and seeing whether the posterisation recurs, since you now have (supposedly) an accurate view of the effect of adjustments. However I would suggest producing a 16bit/ch cropnnn.tif and then adjust levels and curves in PS before reducing to 8 bit, because Vuescan does not give a colour-managed preview display. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: words of wisdom from St Timo snipped from NG
> To conclude, scanner always provides much higher quality from slide than from > negative film. Wild overstatement through and through. It seems to be something Timo has done in his head rather than something he has actually tried. In practice scans of negs can produce very fine images, scans of tranny can produce very fine images. Of course, if you want Velvia-type saturation and contrast, it's best to shoot on Velvia. If you want Kodachrome neutrality shoot on KR64. If you want Reala neutrality and wide contrast range, shoot on Reala. If you want reasonable neutrality, speed, contrast range and spooky immunity to lighting colour temp, shoot on Superia 400. Trying to twist a scan of one to look like a different material is always going to maximise problems. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
Stephen writes ... > Tony, I generally work the way you describe; produce a > 16bit file, open in Photoshop, adjust levels and > curves in 16 bit. The posterization appears in > the 16 bit file. I'll take your advice and rescan. What > adjustment would you suggest I try first? > ... I'll also be awaiting Tony's thoughts ... but I find Vuescan a bit quirky with respect to its settings ... whereas if I make some note of the settings I want to use (mental or otherwise), and then load the Vuescan defaults, then impose my preferences ... and finally scan, then Vuescan behaves normally. I have no idea if this is a quirk with Vuescan+my_LS2000, or what ... I should play around more with saving preferences at specific steps of my procedure. That is, I tend to create the raw file first, and then point vuescan at the device=scan000n.tif for the subsequent crop000n.tif. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
Tony, I generally work the way you describe; produce a 16bit file, open in Photoshop, adjust levels and curves in 16 bit. The posterization appears in the 16 bit file. I'll take your advice and rescan. What adjustment would you suggest I try first? STEPHENJENNINGS P h o t o g r a p h e r Cambridge, MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I use Vuescan to scan >> b&w negs on my Sprintscan 4000, and I suspect I need to make some >> adjustments. What is the best way to begin? The scans that show >> posterization have extreme ranges of light to dark. Is posterization >> unavoidable on these types of images? > > No, it shouldn't happen. I would start by re-scanning an offending neg, and > seeing > whether the posterisation recurs, since you now have (supposedly) an accurate > view of > the effect of adjustments. > > However I would suggest producing a 16bit/ch cropnnn.tif and then adjust > levels and > curves in PS before reducing to 8 bit, because Vuescan does not give a > colour-managed > preview display. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep
RE: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
HI, Stephen! This may be a stupid suggestion, but have you checked your display properties? Could you have your graphics card set to something other than "true color"? Just something easy to overlook... (It also may have happened to me once.. ;-) ) Hope this helps... Guy Clark -Original Message- From: Stephen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan Tony, I generally work the way you describe; produce a 16bit file, open in Photoshop, adjust levels and curves in 16 bit. The posterization appears in the 16 bit file. I'll take your advice and rescan. What adjustment would you suggest I try first? STEPHENJENNINGS P h o t o g r a p h e r Cambridge, MA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: words of wisdom from St Timo snipped from NG
That's funny... I had quite successful results scanning MF negatives on my Umax Astra 2400S flatbed. Of course, I realized that my dynamic range and resoution would not be up to the standard of a good filmscanner, hence my subsequent purchase of a Scan Multi II last summer. I still have several inkjet prints of negatives scanned on the Umax hanging on my office walls (many more prints scanned on the Scan Multi now, but the earlier attempts are still quite pleasing. Perhaps Timo didn't have the patience to try to figure out the best technique using the equipment at hand? Guy Clark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 6:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: words of wisdom from St Timo snipped from NG Most of Timo's mistaken impressions about scanning negatives come from his trying to use a UMAX PowerLook III scanner to scan negatives. He was spectacularly unsuccessful doing this, and he concluded that it was therefore impossible to scan negatives with consumer film scanners. I sent him an e-mail earlier today suggesting that he try VueScan with his PowerLook III. VueScan does a nice job scanning negatives with the PowerLook III, and is an existance proof that it's possible. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
Stephen > Tony, I generally work the way you describe; produce a 16bit file, open in > Photoshop, adjust levels and curves in 16 bit. The posterization appears in > the 16 bit file. I'll take your advice and rescan. What adjustment would > you suggest I try first? I'm baffled then. Does a histogram show combing in the dark tones, or do you only see posterisation on the monitor. I'm just wondering if the reshaping of the monitor gamma by your profiling s/w might be causing it, in which case the scan histogram should look OK. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
> I find Vuescan a bit > quirky with respect to its settings ... whereas if I make some note of > the settings I want to use (mental or otherwise), and then load the > Vuescan defaults, then impose my preferences ... and finally scan, > then Vuescan behaves normally. Apart from the preview marquee selection, which is very occasionally temperamental, I find late versions of Vuescan solid with my Polaroid 4000. Once set to produce 16bit scan and crop files and use the right film material, o/p using Colormatch RGB, .01 black and .01 white points, and scan at native res, all I ever touch are the contrast and brightness controls and colour balance (usually 'white point', something else if that's way off). I set these so I get a slightly low contrast preview with ballpark colour, then do everything else via levels and curves in PS. VS does all the hard stuff, so this is usually very easy. No posterisation in the histograms, nor visible in the image. I have very occasionally (2 or 3 times) had VS and/or scanner get its knickers twisted around its neck so that although the preview looks fine, I get wild colour distortion and posterisation (usually with an extravagantly blue colour balance). Rebooting the PC sorts that out. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Can someone in Toronto do me a favour?
on 8/12/00 4:22 pm, Hemingway, David J at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input/polacolorinsight/ will try it out, David... thanks for the link! -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: Can someone in Toronto do me a favour?
If you world like to look at PCI 5.0 Beta. Let me know what you think. David ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input/polacolorinsight/ -Original Message- From: Johnny Deadman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:33 AM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: Can someone in Toronto do me a favour? on 3/12/00 3:20 am, Hemingway, David J at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Be happy to scan a couple on a SS45 when I get back from Thailand sometime > after the 6th That would be great, david. -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
Not stupid at all; first thing I checked. Set for millions of colors. STEPHENJENNINGS P h o t o g r a p h e r Cambridge, MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > HI, Stephen! > > This may be a stupid suggestion, but have you checked your display > properties? Could you have your graphics card set to something other than > "true color"? > > Just something easy to overlook... > > (It also may have happened to me once.. ;-) ) > > Hope this helps... > > Guy Clark
Re: filmscanners: Avoiding Posterization with Vuescan
The histogram looks fine, and the prints look ok too; I only see the posterization on the monitor. I suspect the profiling s/w as well, although my monitor is pretty old (>5 yrs) and may be part of the problem. I noticed on another post you mentioned setting ".01 black and .01 white points." I leave mine set at the default of 0 and .5. I'll try your settings and see what happens. > I'm baffled then. Does a histogram show combing in the dark tones, or do you > only see > posterisation on the monitor. I'm just wondering if the reshaping of the > monitor gamma > by your profiling s/w might be causing it, in which case the scan histogram > should look > OK. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & > comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
The info I had from the conservation scientists who are researching CD longevity and archival storage was; No sticky labels of any kind (they both unbalance and lead to read and write errors, even round ones + the glue is probably detrimental in the long term). Use only NON solvent based markers if you have to write on the CD's, and don't write on the disk itself if possible, but on the inner clear part where the serial number is. Remeber, the top part is the most easily damage, both by actual scratches, and by chemical deterioration. The underside is, comparatively, much more robust. Tim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PC > Sent: December 8, 2000 6:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage > > > My suspicion is that he has opinion and fact confused. > > Phil > > shAf wrote: > > > I just thought I'd add to this thread something a > Plextor support > > person had said to me, after I had called him on a different matter. > > As a BTW, he claimed that having labeled CDs (blank on both sides) > > with a felt pen, this could in the future cause problems with the data > > on the other side. His implication was to always label the inner part > > of the CD, OR buy blanks with a painted side, OR used stick-on labels > > which wouldn't imbalaced the disk. > > > > shAf :o) > >
Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
Michael, All this stuff about CD-R durability is speculation at the moment, sometimes well-informed, and sometimes ill-informed. I'd give your support person's views a lot of weight if I knew he'd properly researched the field, and had some data or reasoning to back his judgement (rather than hearsay), but otherwise I'd trust my own technical judgement. My particular personal opinion, based on my relevant scientific background, is that there are plenty of things to worry about over long-term storage on CD-R. However, chemical or photon penetration of the metallic reflective layer from the top (label) side is not high on this list, precisely because it's an excellent chemical and optical barrier layer, protecting the data from that side. It is, nevertheless, very vulnerable mechanically. Use a recommended non-corrosive pen or a paper label, and worry instead about still having a machine and operating system that'll read the disk in 20 years time, or about the dye data clouds and/or their enclosing polymer matrix self-destructing. I think it'd be sensible to recopy valuable & irreplaceable image files (keeping on-topic, you understand) every few years. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:46 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage a Plextor support > person had said to me...that having labeled CDs (blank on both sides) > with a felt pen...cause problems with the data > on the other side. >
Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
Tim, You could always peel off the label and try again, if a disk doesn't read correctly. Surely an imbalance will show immediately. Everyone should test their CD-Rs after writing them, preferably in another drive. That 's a different issue from the longevity of the data. Have your conservation scientists any published work with real data, to which I could refer, or are they just guessing, based on their knowledge of the technologies involved, as I am? We all need this information to keep our lovely images pristine for our grandchildren, but I have the uncomfortable feeling that everyone's guessing, and no-one knows. We need some references to the scientific literature, don't we? Has anyone got a tame information scientist who'll find out the real state of the art for us? Alan T - Original Message - From: Tim Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 2:46 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage > The info I had from the conservation scientists who are researching CD > longevity and archival storage was; No sticky labels of any kind (they both > unbalance and lead to read and write errors, even round ones
RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
How about magneto optical? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Tyson > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage > > > Tim, > > You could always peel off the label and try again, if a > disk doesn't read correctly. Surely an imbalance will show > immediately. Everyone should test their CD-Rs after writing > them, preferably in another drive. That 's a different issue > from the longevity of the data. > > Have your conservation scientists any published work with > real data, to which I could refer, or are they just > guessing, based on their knowledge of the technologies > involved, as I am? > > We all need this information to keep our lovely images > pristine for our grandchildren, but I have the uncomfortable > feeling that everyone's guessing, and no-one knows. We need > some references to the scientific literature, don't we? Has > anyone got a tame information scientist who'll find out the > real state of the art for us? > > Alan T > > - Original Message - > From: Tim Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 2:46 AM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage > > > > The info I had from the conservation scientists who are > researching CD > > longevity and archival storage was; No sticky labels of > any kind (they both > > unbalance and lead to read and write errors, even round > ones > >
filmscanners: words of wisdom from St Timo snipped from NG
>I got very fine results scanning slides on the S20 using Vuescan 6.3.15. >So I know it can do good contrast/color saturation. But, when I scan >Kodak Gold 100-6, the colors are significantly less saturated with reduced >contrast in the image compared to a commercial print and my memory of the >color intensity of the actual object. ... I am mostly puzzled that the >scanner must be fine since the slides come out so nicely. The scanner can be rather ~fine for slides. However in order to convert the image data from the negative film into a viewable image the scanner driver has to apply extremely harsh conversions. Please make a test: Shoot the same scene with slide and with negative film. Then compare the slide and the negative side by side on a light-table. Look at some fine detail in the slide and see how that same detail appears in the negative, it will be -very- flat. So, in order to get the viewable image from slide, the slide is just simply scanned (with the available dynamic range and/or signal to noise ratio of the scanner) and at this point it is already a viewable image. (This can be improved still by opening the compression of the slide at both end of the range). In order to get the viewable image from the negative film the negative is first scanned (with the available dynamic range and/or signal to noise ratio of the scanner). Then this digitized data has to be strongly (and non-linearly) amplified in order to get the detail visible (in addition to inversion of the tonal-range and color-space correction). But the amplification will also similarly amplify all imperfections that there happen to be, like the scanner noise and the film grain. So bringing this badly degraded image data to a similarly saturated color-space that the slide provides will make the imperfections even more visible. Therefore software that converts negative film scans into viewable image try to hide these imperfections, they do not do the conversion correctly, that is they do not amplify the image data as much as is needed for correct tonality and they do not apply the correct saturation. To conclude, scanner always provides much higher quality from slide than from negative film. Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
filmscanners: RE: Posterisation LS2000
After further searching what the reason of my problem is I found that the IT8 calibration of the Silverfast 5.1 software is somehow at fault. This is what I wrote to Lasersoft today. I'm curious what they will answer... Jean-Pierre To Lasersoft Support. Hi, I have a Nikon LS2000 with Silverfast 5.1 and IT8 calibration used with Photoshop 5.02 on Win2000. After making the IT8 calibration I scan my Fuji Sensia II slides. I'm struggling with some nasty posterisation especially in the dark grey and black areas. I'm also using MonacoEZ color monitor calibration software. After disabling EZColor and using Adobe Gamma instead most of the posterisation is gone but still with subtle low key pictures some apparent posterisation remains. I checked all settings again and again but nothing helped. I seriously thought the hardware of my LS2000 was at fault and contacted the folks at Nikon Belgium. They checked the scanner but found nothing abnormal. I must say I was quiet despaired as suddenly I had the idea of disabling the IT8 Silverfast calibration for my LS2000. And there it was, a nice looking low key picture with subtle greys and no posterisation at all!! So apparently the IT8 calibration of Silverfast is at fault somehow. I went looking what settings could be wrong. First I want to ask : when using Adobe Gamma I get a system wide display calibration, but must I then also check the "Use Monitor compensation" (or something like that since I have the dutch version of PS) in File/Color/RGB Settings. It seems to me that I do a double profiling in that case or I'm I wrong? Also do I use in Silverfast "Option/CMS/Internal > Monitor: Automatic or ? Second: the function of "Autopip Middle Factor" is not clear to me. I've set it to -50 and +50. Also "autocontrast", "Automatic when ADF" and "Limit Gamma Slope" is a problem. These are my settings in OPTION: General: Colourmodel: RGB Units of Measure :inch Densitometer Radius:3 pixel Dafault setting: Silverfast Defaults Interpolation: Silverfast Standard High Resolution Prescan: 1x Scratch Disk: D:\ Gamma Gradation: 2.2 Q-Factor: 1.0 (I'm printing on inkjet Epson Photo 750) Reopen SF after scan: unchecked Auto: Auto Treshold Highlight 2 levels: unchecked Auto Treshold Shadow 2 levels: unchecked Highlight Offset 2 Shadow Offset 98 Colour Cast Removal 0 Autopip Middlefactor -50 +50 Autocontrast unchecked Automatic when ADF unchecked MidPip Fixed target 50 active: uncheckecd CMS Colour Management: Scanner>Internal calibration Internal>Monitor Automatic Internal>Output RGB Profiles for ICM: Scanner(Transparency): grey Internal: BruceRGB Output/Printer: grey Epson Stylus Photo 750 Rendering Intent: Perceptual Embedded ICC Profiles: Embed ICC Profile: checked Profile to embed: BruceRGB Plug&Play CMYK: grey SWOP Sep UCR315.ast Special: Colour Filter: Green Lightness: +10 (for a very dark image) R0 G0 B0 Prescan Monochrome: unchecked Prescan Draft: unchecked Scan Draft: unchecked Limit Gamma Slope: unchecked In Photoshop 5.02 Colourspace BruceRGB, View with monitor compensation I did the IT8 calibration first with the Silverfast slide T2X C-ROES 1999:10 and tried also another IT8 slide from Kodak: IT8-Q60 1998:08. I made myself sure I was using the right reference files. Levels and Curevs are reset. When using IT8 calibration some strange effects occur. The preview scan gets an overall reddish colour cast and when opening levels and just clicking (not moving!) the gamma slide the red colours in the pictures suddenly drops in saturation. Closing the levels and opening the curves restores the reds as previous. Again when disabling IT8 calib. all these phenomena disappear and I get very good scans without any posterisation. Only problem is that the scanner isn't calibrated anymore wich I paid for... So it's clear to me that the IT8 calibration is malfunctioning. Two possibilities are: something is wrong set somewhere, or the software is at fault. Could you please help me out of this problem. Many thanks, Jean-Pierre Verbeke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Belgium
filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.18 Available
I just released VueScan 6.3.18 for Windows, Mac OS and LInux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 6.3.18 * Fixed problems with some UMAX scanners * Fixed problem with Epson Perfection 1640 * Added support for LinoType scanners that are manufactured by UMAX Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
I just thought I'd add to this thread something a Plextor support person had said to me, after I had called him on a different matter. As a BTW, he claimed that having labeled CDs (blank on both sides) with a felt pen, this could in the future cause problems with the data on the other side. His implication was to always label the inner part of the CD, OR buy blanks with a painted side, OR used stick-on labels which wouldn't imbalaced the disk. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage
My suspicion is that he has opinion and fact confused. Phil shAf wrote: > I just thought I'd add to this thread something a Plextor support > person had said to me, after I had called him on a different matter. > As a BTW, he claimed that having labeled CDs (blank on both sides) > with a felt pen, this could in the future cause problems with the data > on the other side. His implication was to always label the inner part > of the CD, OR buy blanks with a painted side, OR used stick-on labels > which wouldn't imbalaced the disk. > > shAf :o)
