filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available
I just released VueScan 6.3.19 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 6.3.19 * Significantly improved image cleaning on scanners with an infrared channel (Scan Elite, LS-30/LS-2000) * Separated filter option into clean and sharpen options * Fixed small problem with blue channel calibration on some Minolta Scan Speed and Scan Elite scanners Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: opinions kodak rfs 3600 scanner Vs Minolta dualII
The scantime fro the RFS3600 is in batchmode preview 12bit (slowest) 12 sec´s per image SCSI and USB, finalscan around 50MB is 2min 10sec on scsi and approx 4 min on usb. Best regards, Stefan
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
After what was I reading on the CD storage thread, particularly about the work the Canadians are doing on determining the long term stability of vaious brands of CD's, plus the other factors of recorder type, speed, labels, etc., as well as the simple fact that they ain't no CDR that's been around as long as I have and Kodachrome has, all that makes me doubt that CDR's are my archiving technology of choice. FYI, if you check out the archiving standards set by HABS, which is the national group that sets up standards for US archives, Black and White archivally processed silver based images are the rule... Mike Moore Rob Geraghty wrote: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] we professional photographers and imaging types need to remind these technodictators that they still haven't solved the archival problem as of yet, at least from what I have been following on the CD thread... *shrug* 50+ years from a CDR sounds good to me, considering that much higher density storage will be available far sooner than that. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners
HI,.all!! Kudos to Ed Hamrick for his latest vuescan release!! I now can operate both my Scan Multi II and my Umax Astra 2400S at the same time (well, not simultaneously, but they can both be on and usable at the same time.)! For some reason, the TWAIN drivers for the two machines don't coexist well, and I could only use one by turning off the other one and rebooting. Since Vuescan isn't a TWAIN application, both units can be used alternately without rebooting!!! Thanx, Ed!!! Guy Clark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 7:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners In a message dated 12/9/2000 8:13:22 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed, does vuescan work with any USB scanners in Windows and if so, which ones? This list is on: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Also, do you (or does anyone on the list) know whether Plustek Optic Pro scanners are rebadged Umax or Microtek scanners? No, Plustek scanners use their own unique commands. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Epson used to sell film scanners...maybe its time they got back into the market. Epson withdrew because they were disappointed by sales volume with the FS200. At that point they decided that dual-purpose flatbeds were the way to go. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners
Wondering if the problem I am having is similar? Been using an epson 636 flatbed and recently hooked up a Minolta Dimage Scan dual.ll Both use Twain drivers the software on the Minolta will not open unless I pull the USB cable and reinsert it. Hmm! Would vuescan solve this,or is the solution lurking elswhere? Dave Small
RE: Re[2]: filmscanners:Kodak Supra vs Tmax for bW output?
Also, try Image/Adjust/Channel Mixer... to build a grayscale image from whatever combination of color channels your eye prefers. This lets you use Photoshop to simulate a filter on the camera in the field. E.g., for dark sky, use more red channel, less blue. Ansel Adams would have loved it. Richard Wolfson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dieder Bylsma Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: filmscanners:Kodak Supra vs Tmax for bW output? At 13:42 + 12/11/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dieder, Can you give any details of your gradient mapping / greyscale ramp technique, or tell us where we can find details? Thanks, Peter O'Reilly sure thing. Mode:Adjust:Gradient Map. =) I discovered it by accident and quite like the results...you can experiment with different thresholds at which your colours will be converted into gray etc. Not much more to say than that...just experiment. I found that it gave me a more solid feeling grayscale picture when going from colour than just doing 'mode:grayscale' and chucking out all the colour information. Somewhat different results as well than desaturating a picture as well. As always your mileage may vary. D. -- Dieder Bylsma | __|
RE: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners
For some reason, the TWAIN drivers for the two machines don't coexist well, and I could only use one by turning off the other one and rebooting. I found this to be the case with my Umax SCSI flatbed and Minolta SCSI Scan Multi until someone on one of the lists suggested that it might have something to do with the order in which the devices were connected to the SCSI card and the order in which SCSI ID# were assigned to the devices. I changed the order and, lo behold, both devices would install at the same and remain available for use without rebooting with each switch. Apparently, there is a flaw or bug in the Umax SCSI twain driver that requires it to be loaded first before another SCSI scanner and assigned an SCSI ID# lower than any other SCSI scanner; otherwise it will not install while the other scanner is installed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Clark Guy Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners HI,.all!! Kudos to Ed Hamrick for his latest vuescan release!! I now can operate both my Scan Multi II and my Umax Astra 2400S at the same time (well, not simultaneously, but they can both be on and usable at the same time.)! For some reason, the TWAIN drivers for the two machines don't coexist well, and I could only use one by turning off the other one and rebooting. Since Vuescan isn't a TWAIN application, both units can be used alternately without rebooting!!! Thanx, Ed!!! Guy Clark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 7:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Umax scanners In a message dated 12/9/2000 8:13:22 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed, does vuescan work with any USB scanners in Windows and if so, which ones? This list is on: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Also, do you (or does anyone on the list) know whether Plustek Optic Pro scanners are rebadged Umax or Microtek scanners? No, Plustek scanners use their own unique commands. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive/Umax scanner
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Kersenbrock snip P.S - Magazines like P.C. Magazine has done benchmarking of servers using IDE vs SCSI disks, and I recall their conclusions to be that they were very surprised to find that it didn't make much difference in the actual system performance. As a newbie to the list, this is my first post but maybe I can add some first hand experience and opinions to this debate... The system I run is as follows: The motherboard is dual PIII with built in U2W SCSI and RAID port. The RAID port is populated with an Adaptec ARO1130U2 RAID card on which hang two IBM Ultrastar 18ES 7200rpm 18GB drives running a RAID0 (striped, no parity) array. This array forms the basis of my main system drives and additionally, I have a ~30GB UDMA33 7200rpm IDE drive which I use as a dumping ground for files I only need to use once in a blue moon. The OS is NT4.0. Some example timings: Saving a 50MB cpt file to the SCSI drives takes about 5 seconds and to the IDE drive, about 10 seconds. Reading a 50MB cpt file from SCSI and IDE takes about 1 or 2 seconds. Clearly, writing to SCSI outperforms IDE and has the added advantage in that the error correction is better as the RAID controller error correction is better than a standalone drive (I should also point out that the IDE channel is dedicated to the harddrive - if you have another IDE drive on the same channel which is being accessed, the IDE timings will get a lot worse). You pays your money and makes your choice. I would always go for SCSI if the budget allows - but IDE offers way more space for your money. Don't know if that helped or not! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Scanner - notebook
You can get a SCSI PCMCIA adapter from Adaptec. THey have an online store Teresa === At 09:34 AM 12/11/2000 -0800, you wrote: Hi again all, May sound dumb question, but I'm not too familiar with notebooks/laptops: what is most (cost-)effective way to attach SCSI scanner (have Canon FS2710) to notebook? I have been offered an IBM ThinkPad series machine and I wonder how to attach scanner to it. Has USB, but as I recall FS2710 is SCSI-only. Any ideas or http links welcome. Best, Sal...
RE: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive/Umax scanner
... The RAID port is populated with an Adaptec ARO1130U2 RAID card on which hang two IBM Ultrastar 18ES 7200rpm 18GB drives running a RAID0 (striped, no parity) array. ... Clearly, writing to SCSI outperforms IDE and has the added advantage in that the error correction is better as the RAID controller error correction is better than a standalone drive How could the RAID controller could improve error correction w/out parity? Bill Ross
Re: filmscanners: Scanner - notebook
Thanks, will check it out Salinger - Original Message - From: Teresa Lunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 8:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner - notebook You can get a SCSI PCMCIA adapter from Adaptec. THey have an online store Teresa
Re: filmscanners: Canon 2710 vs Minolta Scan Dual II
Sorry about this newbie question, but: For use with Mac G4, which is best choice? Issues I know of: --both come with PS-LE --Vuescan cannot be used with Scan Dual II (USB-Mac) --both offer 12-bit output --both advertise 3.2 density range --Scan Dual II ~$480 vs Canon ~$530 (adding for Mac-compatible SCSI adaptor) (supplied one not for Mac) --neither offers multiscanning or ICE I think Scan Dual II may have some better features. But I wonder how much I would be giving up by not having Vuescan. My orientation: To be used for art, supporting Zeiss optics on tripod, neg and pos film. Considering learning curve issues, I may start out with one of the above and Epson 870 printer, and later upgrade to better scanner and Epson 2000. I would greatly appreciate some expert opinions on this choice. Thanks, Berry
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available
In a message dated 12/11/2000 12:34:38 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Imagine being able to select only certain regions where dust is noticeable, and apply your filter plugin selectively(?!) Is it possible to work with an RGBI image in Photoshop? If not, Ed's algorithm or ICE as a plugin would be crippled. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Mike wrote: as the simple fact that they ain't no CDR that's been around as long as I have and Kodachrome has, all that makes me doubt that CDR's are my archiving technology of choice. If you're looking for a solution which is "write once and keep forever", CDRs probably aren't the solution. The longevity of Kodachrome is excellent, but there's a lot of photos I just can't take with Kodachrome. I also live in a humid part of the world, where slides are susceptible to mould, and even Kodachrome doesn't survive mould well. CDRs are a lot less susceptible to mould. FYI, if you check out the archiving standards set by HABS, which is the national group that sets up standards for US archives, Black and White archivally processed silver based images are the rule... Which is wonderful if you are archiving BW images, and not much help for colour. I suppose you could store colour separations, but speaking for myself, I don't have the time, money or materials to do it. Even if I have to replicate my CDRs to a DVD-RAM or some similar medium in 10 years time, it's less hassle and lower cost than restricting myself to Kodachrome and finding some way to store the slides away from humidity and heat when I live in a sub-tropical area. I'm not disagreeing that Kodachrome and archival BW prints are the best long term storage we know about for certain at the moment. I'm only saying they're impractical for a lot of people. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Aliasing again, alas
The page is not indexed, nor is it likely to be until it and a lot of other pages are finished, as it's really part of Mk2 website. Tony, I'm pleased the Mk2 website is still bubbling on the back burner. Your aliasing page is very clear and useful. It bodes well for Mk2... Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: yellow cast from Insight Dodge and Burn
Hi Frank. Frank Paris wrote: Has anyone ever noticed that they get a yellow cast in white highlights when they use the dodge and burn tool in the SS4000 PolaColor Insight software? That doesn't sound much worse than the awful grey pall that descends over areas of a Photoshop image when you try to use the burn tool. Regards,Pete.
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Hi Rob. Rob Geraghty wrote: Oh. I didn't realise you were talking about a system that required a change in the signal from the camera onward. C'mon Rob, you're windin' me up entcha? I'm sure you know that I meant the HDTV camera, and not our still cameras. Are the CCD elements small enough to use in a film scanning arrangement? Or are you talking about some sort of lens system to enlarge the image? :-7 Film scanners already have a lens system, the repro ratio is just a matter of adjusting the conjugate focii. (The distance what the lens is from the film, and what the CCD is from the lens) Except that an A3 flatbed scanner doesn't have to scan at 2700+ dpi optically. No it doesn't, but don't kid yourself that filmscanners get leading-edge, state-of-the-blessed-art CCDs put in them. Most of the 2700dpi stuff is a throw off from flatbed scanner development, and stuff that wouldn't sell anywhere else any more. I believe the Polaroid 4k uses ex-spy plane 'travelling-image' technology, which is fairly high-tech, but then Nikon use a monochrome only sensor that probably started life designed as a component for a fax machine. (Hey, sorry Nikon users, but someone had to mention it sometime.) Haven't you ever wondered why they picked the seemingly random figure of 2700dpi for filmscanners? Think back to the old 300dpi, A4 flatbeds. Now multiply that 300 dpi by the width of an A4 flatbed scanner platen, 8.5 inches, and you get 2550 pixels. Well, stone me! If that ain't the exact same pixel width as what my 2700dpi filmscanner turns out. Is that a co-incidence or what, Mary Poppins? It's the mass market that pushes technology, and the way I see things going, the likes of the Epson perfection Photo series, and Scanmaker whatevernumber will eventually overtake the current 'prosumer' dedicated filmscanner market, in both quality and quantity. Maybe manufacturers are hoping that they don't need to worry about film scanners. It's a transitional market anyway - 150+ years of historical resource on film is a transitional market? Plus the millions of frames that are being added year on year. Transitional in quite a time frame, if you ask me. There are people out there that don't even know that they can get grandad's snaps onto their computer, let alone how to do it. If you accept that there's basically not much more technology in a filmscanner than a flatbed: Joe Public will spend 80 notes on a flatbed to copy the kid's scribblings without a blink. Offer him the opportunity to scan his fading family slides as well, and for only twice the price, and he'll consider it. But treble or quadruple the price, and Joe is more than marginally less interested. Having said that, Acer seems to have taken the bull by the horns in providing a reasonably priced film scanner with ICE. We'll see. I don't think that ICE alone will sell the 2740 for Acer, the price tag puts it in direct competition with the Canon 2710, the Scandual II, the old Scanspeed, and the HP S20. None of them has ICE, I know, but outside of this list, I don't think that digital ICE ranks high in most people's list of dinner-party conversation topics. I've just put a stopwatch to it, and ICE makes scans over 6 times slower on the 2740. Joe won't sit around twiddling his thumbs for that long, and you need one hell of a computer to make batch scanning possible with Photoshop. Unless Acer manage to pull a very big rabbit out of a very small hat, I don't think the 2740 is going to enhance their reputation overmuch, although it might knock the price of filmscanners in general down another notch. Regards,Pete.
filmscanners: an IR plugin (was VueScan 6.3.19 Available)
Rob writes ... In a message dated 12/11/2000 12:34:38 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Imagine being able to select only certain regions where dust is noticeable, and apply your filter plugin selectively(?!) Is it possible to work with an RGBI image in Photoshop? If not, Ed's algorithm or ICE as a plugin would be crippled. I imagined Ed's IR plugin would need to be pointed at a file which included the IR channel ... its xy size would of course need to be identical to the working image. shAf:o)
RE: filmscanners: an unbelievably stupid question about the Epson 1640
That is a high density 50 pin connector, the most commonly found these days. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 11:09 AM To: Filmscanners; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: an unbelievably stupid question about the Epson 1640 What the hell kind of scsi connector is that on the back? -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available
Daryl wrote: Now I'm confused (not hard to do). Please explain to me "where" ICE is.is it software or hardware? Or a combination of both to get that capability? A combination is needed to get the capability. "ICE" per se is a piece of software written by a 3rd party company, licensed to a number of scanner makers - eg. Nikon, Acer and Minolta that I'm aware of. In order for ICE to work, it needs a fourth channel from the scanner - an Infra-Red channel (IR). The reason for this is dust and scratches are very obvious in IR, which allows the software to "see" where they are. The software then uses various clever algorithms to resonstruct the missing piece of the image using the surrounding pixels and eliminate the dust or scratch in the process. So only scanners with an IR channel can use ICE. As far as I know, Vuescan *can* remove some dust and scratches without an IR channel but it works much better *with* an IR channel. There's other software which attempts to remove dust and scratches - I think Polaroid's Insight has such a filter, and I think there's one in PS5 (or later) as well. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Pete wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: Oh. I didn't realise you were talking about a system that required a change in the signal from the camera onward. C'mon Rob, you're windin' me up entcha? I'm sure you know that I meant the HDTV camera, and not our still cameras. I knew you were talking about a signal from an HDTV camera, but I *didn't* know that the camera had to be modified to produce a higher resolution signal which could then be anti-aliased to produce a cleaner HDTV signal. I thought the reason why you mentioned the experiment was that someone had demonstrated a method of anti aliasing which *didn't* require a higher resolution input. No it doesn't, but don't kid yourself that filmscanners get leading-edge, state-of-the-blessed-art CCDs put in them. That wasn't what I meant. I meant that the CCD in my HP scanjet wouldn't physically fit in my LS30. But I haven't actually dismantled a scanjet to look at the CCD, so I remain unsure of the physical size of the device. I'll have to see if we have a broken one somewhere that can be taken apart. is fairly high-tech, but then Nikon use a monochrome only sensor that probably started life designed as a component for a fax machine. (Hey, sorry Nikon users, but someone had to mention it sometime.) It only had to be stated if it were known for certain. :) Haven't you ever wondered why they picked the seemingly random figure of 2700dpi for filmscanners? Nope, I figured out a while ago that 2700dpi from a 35mm film frame translates to an A4 page printed at 300dpi. A4 (US letter, whatever) is the most common printer size in the world. Makes sense to make scanners which cater to it. It's the mass market that pushes technology, and the way I see things going, the likes of the Epson perfection Photo series, and Scanmaker whatevernumber will eventually overtake the current 'prosumer' dedicated filmscanner market, in both quality and quantity. Maybe. Certainly the scanmaker since they have a film drawer. Maybe others can correct me but I didn't think it was possible to get the same accuracy out of a film scan with scanner glass in the way. 150+ years of historical resource on film is a transitional market? Are we talking about the professional market or the consumer market? The professional market will be catered for at professional prices. Most consumers will go straight to digital because they can't figure out how to use a scanner. All the image formats and dpi stuff get too confusing and they don't understand why their scans won't fit on a floppy disk. Plus the millions of frames that are being added year on year. Transitional in quite a time frame, if you ask me. But is it a mass market? But treble or quadruple the price, and Joe is more than marginally less interested. Exactly. I've just put a stopwatch to it, and ICE makes scans over 6 times slower on the 2740. Bummer. The difference isn't nearly so much with the Nikon. (despite fax machine technology ;) Joe won't sit around twiddling his thumbs for that long, and you need one hell of a computer to make batch scanning possible with Photoshop. What about Vuescan? [snip] the 2740 [...] might knock the price of filmscanners in general down another notch. Which is all I was trying to say. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Tony wrote: Epson withdrew because they were disappointed by sales volume with the FS200. Given that it was really only a 1200dpi scanner, the price was hard to justify. If they'd made something which gave "real" 2400dpi results, it would have been much more worthwhile. At that point they decided that dual-purpose flatbeds were the way to go. Much bigger market. Something like the Epson 1640 gives similar results to the FS200 but with the vastly increased usefulness of being able to scan A4 reflective material as well. It'll be interesting to see if anyone ever makes a film scanner with 2700dpi resolution for the kinds of prices flatbeds have come down to. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: Re[2]: filmscanners:Kodak Supra vs Tmax for bW output?
sure thing. Mode:Adjust:Gradient Map. =) I discovered it by accident and quite like the results...you can experiment with different thresholds at which your colours will be converted into gray etc. Not much more to say than that...just experiment. I found that it gave me a more solid feeling grayscale picture when going from colour than just doing 'mode:grayscale' and chucking out all the colour information. Somewhat different results as well than desaturating a picture as well. As always your mileage may vary. Sorry, you lost me here - can you expand on this? Thanks Tim A
filmscanners: IR dust removal (was VueScan 6.3.19 Available)
Ed writes ... Interestingly, the cleaning algorithm in VueScan (which is completely different than ICE) doesn't soften the image at all, except in the area around actual dust spots. The ICE algorithm softens the image throughout when used. And after giving some thought, why should even the Nikon software soften the image? If the IR channel is "flat" ... that is, indicates no "defects", why would any algorthym be applied?? Can I assume this version of Vuescan acquires the IR channel no differently than past versions? shAf:o)
RE: filmscanners: Aliasing again, alas
Tony wrote: www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/alias.htm I like the explanation, Tony - a few pictures can be really helpful, which is why some threads on this list take longer than they might otherwise. :) One small niggle which may not be worth mentioning - AFAIK most film scanners use a single row of CCD elements moved across the film or with the film moved across the elements, rather than a grid CCD like in a digital camera. So your grid pattern diagram shows the areas "seen" by the CCD elements, not a grid of actual CCD elements. The net effect is the same, so it may not be worth confusing people with. Only pedants like me would point it out. ;) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Image archives was Re: Film Scanners and what they see.
Mike wrote: My point is that we are sitting on the leading edge of technological developments that threaten to do away with tried and proven (although not perfect) processes that have allowed us to see what the last 170 years looked like... We need to be very careful before we start to believe everything the manufacturers tell us about "archival" CD's, inks, etc... And painters panicked that photography would make them obsolete too. :) Any paradigm shift brings dangers. In reality, as long as we look after our negs and slides, it doesn't much matter whether CDR technology or inkjet technology is less than reliable. :) Those who can afford the "tried and proven" methods of photographic archiving will probably continue to use them for a long time yet. Many of us lesser mortals will have to take a risk that we can find ways of looking after our pictures in both film and electronic form. I don't necessarily believe anything companies tell me in their advertising material, but on the other hand thanks to Nikon making film scanners and Epson making photo quality inkjets, I can now make my own 10x8 colour and BW prints at home without mixing up chemicals, building a darkroom, or buying an enlarger and photo paper etc (I still need paper for the printer of course :). I also make my own BW prints by wet chemistry in the winter months when it's cool enough, but digital technology has made photographic things possible for me which would be much more expensive or impossible otherwise. I take your point about known versus unknown methods and their known or unknown longevity. It's certainly important enough to warrant the expense in time and money for some, but not for everyone. Going back to the archival nature of CDR, there just aren't any practical alternatives at the moment, so we just need to know how to make the best of what we have. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Image archives was Re: Film Scanners and what they see.
Hey, Rob, I wouldn't be so quick to say that what you shoot today might not be of interest to someone in 50 years. Quite the contrary... one reason, I have seen your web page, you have a lot of nice shots... I am sure some museum or historian will want to get the rights to your archive I am into my hybrid digital (shoot film, have a lab process the film, then I scan and work with Photoshop for inkjet or tiff file output on CDR) because I don't want to set up a lab or have to deal with labs for a lot of my work... I have three enlargers I haven't used in years... won't sell 'em cuz I know when I do, I 'll need 'em the next day... But my little Minolta Scan Elite allowed me to take a 30 year old neg I shot of a rock guitar player in low light and coax enuf out of it to work it around in Photoshop and come with an image I could only have dreamed of getting with a regular darkroom... now the question is... how do I make it so it will last? I will tiff it onto Photo CD, maybe shoot a film copy... but will it last as long as one of my solarization prints on Agfa 6 of the same band that crawled out of an art director's file after twenty-five years and ended up getting published in a book? Keep shooting, scanning and saving... and remember, always cover your posterity! Mike Rob Geraghty wrote: Mike wrote: My point is that we are sitting on the leading edge of technological developments that threaten to do away with tried and proven (although not perfect) processes that have allowed us to see what the last 170 years looked like... We need to be very careful before we start to believe everything the manufacturers tell us about "archival" CD's, inks, etc... And painters panicked that photography would make them obsolete too. :) Any paradigm shift brings dangers. In reality, as long as we look after our negs and slides, it doesn't much matter whether CDR technology or inkjet technology is less than reliable. :) Those who can afford the "tried and proven" methods of photographic archiving will probably continue to use them for a long time yet. Many of us lesser mortals will have to take a risk that we can find ways of looking after our pictures in both film and electronic form. I don't necessarily believe anything companies tell me in their advertising material, but on the other hand thanks to Nikon making film scanners and Epson making photo quality inkjets, I can now make my own 10x8 colour and BW prints at home without mixing up chemicals, building a darkroom, or buying an enlarger and photo paper etc (I still need paper for the printer of course :). I also make my own BW prints by wet chemistry in the winter months when it's cool enough, but digital technology has made photographic things possible for me which would be much more expensive or impossible otherwise. I take your point about known versus unknown methods and their known or unknown longevity. It's certainly important enough to warrant the expense in time and money for some, but not for everyone. Going back to the archival nature of CDR, there just aren't any practical alternatives at the moment, so we just need to know how to make the best of what we have. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Aliasing again, alas
I thought I posted this mid-last week, but must have misdirected it as it never appeared. www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/alias.htm is an attempt to explain aliasing in a few simple illustrations, without long words, maths, mention of filtering or Nyquist (yet!). Tested by my 13y.o. son who understood it instantly. The page is not indexed, nor is it likely to be until it and a lot of other pages are finished, as it's really part of Mk2 website. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
I am sorry but I fail to see how higher speed and higher density archival storage lessens the amount of time it takes to copy data from one media to another, which I take it was part of Chris's point. As for your statement that you probably won't be around in 50 years to worry about the error rates on your CDRs might be true but it sort of begs the question. Libraries, museums, future generations will be around and will be faced with the problem. Isn't the whole point of archiving materials for the future uses and generations to make such materials easily retrievable and useful in some later time under different circumstances? This in no way is intended as a criticism of your comments but only an observation. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. Chris wrote: Surely longevity is the key word here and not pure capacity. As the amount of stored data increases we do not want to have to spend a bulk of our time copying all the library CDs onto the latest media, we want to be creating and storing the latest information/music/photos. Er yes, but my point was (not elaborated very well) that with higher speed and higher density archival storage, it's possible to copy data from lots of CDRs to a lot less of some other medium - like DVD-RAM or some other future medium. It would be nice never to have to copy these things at all, I agree. I probably won't be around in 50 years time to worry about the error rates on my CDRs anyhow. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
