Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
- Original Message - From: "Julian Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 6:58 PM Subject: Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 > And then I wonder why, when they already do > multi-passes to reduce noise as in the LS2000, why they don't up the > exposure for subsequent scans? Maybe it is hard to keep things linear? > Not really following this thread so I may be missing your intent...but whenever I've tried increasing exposure beyond "proper exposure", the CCD saturates (ie blooms) on those pixels that were already bright. This spills over into the neighbouring dark pixels and ruins them. So extra exposure has limited utility AFIAK. Byron
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
Pete, Do you reckon this method will work even when, as on the Scanwit, the exposure given by the scanner for each raw scan will vary from frame to frame? If I want to try this method, should I work on each of the R,G,B histograms separately, and set the B & W points to the same value, or what? Any suggestions welcome! Alan T. - Original Message - From: photoscientia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask > The technique of starting from a raw scan, and applying a generic correction > over multiple frames is the only way to get even colour and density across > multi-frame panoramas. > > Rather than use curves, it's easier to use the levels tool, and align both ends > of the red, green, and blue histograms, IMHO. > > Regards, Pete.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x suggestion
Alan, Don't you find that the colour balance is markedly altered when you crop the preview and then scan it? I find that my principal subject, somewhere inside the frame, is often more colourful than its surroundings. I find this on my own Scanwit. For this reason I alter the 'Crop|Buffer%' strip round the edge to 10% so that I centre-weight the preview colour balance. It then changes less radically if I crop the image. I haven't worked out whether it's a 10% linear strip right round the outside of the image (1-0.8*0.8, 36% of the pixels) or 10% of the pixels. (Ed H?) Or do you always work on the full image area and crop it later? (Arguably this is an easier way to work.) Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: Alan Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Majordomo leben.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:19 PM Subject: re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x suggestion > On my scanwit, and I would speculate that other none exposure adjusting scanners as well, the preview and the scan image are very close. Close enough to use preview mem while adjusting color settings to get an image that is great in PS and requires very little tweaking.
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 17:31 14/01/2001 +, you wrote: >Roman, > > > Ilford XP1 developer had different composition to plain C41. The newer XP2 > > requires C41. > > >You _could_ use C41 with XP1, but Ilford recommended their own special XP1 >developer for best results. They now seem to have stopped selling special >developer for XP films and say you should use ordinary C41. > >Brian Rumary, England > >http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm I know that. Ilford has changed the XP emulsion and tuned it to C41 for commercial reasons. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were, are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, to wit a photographic paper. The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years ago, and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying not watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend reading "Digital Color Management" by Giorganni and Madden. From your response I gather, you are new to principles of modern color photography. At 09:42 14/01/2001 -0600, you wrote: > >Bear in mind that it is not important, how does the mask look to your eye, > >but how the paper emulsion sees it. and for the paper the differences may > >be negligible. > >So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as >to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange >masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic >printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes where >the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some time to >the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be optimized for >digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play as a >factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the >differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be >negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be >assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion?
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 16:33 14/01/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I clicked on the URL in your message and it opened OK. Having tried it, I >really don't recommend the procedure in the site though. >well, it does work today, but it was not yesterday. Must be weekend. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits?
Austin wrote: >>> Typically, the image data only falls in part of the range of the CCD, >>> and should be more in the middle, not the ends. >> Well, that's part of my point. >You're suggesting treating the CCD non-linearly it appears. No. I'm saying that the signal to noise ratio changes depending on the input voltage. > There is a thought to that, but I will say, that you're > probably not going to get any better (read as more usable) > information from it...would be my first thought. In my experience there if far less noise in mid tones than dark tones of a slide. > I believe that doing either multiple exposures and/or > multiple input ranges pretty much does the same thing, > doesn't it? That's something else. I've tried to aviod the idea of hardware that is variable because I'm just talking about a given piece of hardware - like my LS30 - which can't vary the input to the D/A. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
- Original Message - From: "Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : : : I know that. Ilford has changed the XP emulsion and tuned it to C41 for : commercial reasons. ~~ The reason appears to be that they were not selling enough XP dev to make it worth making it. XP1 was also being sold as a film which could be developed in C41 dev as an alternative. As a commercial user of both C41 and Xp dev my money was on Xp every time. the Mini labs and the Pro labs however could not have their minds changed and the additional one and three quarter minutes dev time was viewed as a retrograde step. bottom line is that profit beat quality.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 2.5 troubles
John Elftmann wrote: > Hi gang. > > I was up late last night watching trash t.v. (Cops, Change of Heart, Blind > date, etc. ) and scanning some old negatives with my Nikon LS-30. Near > the end of the session, I lost the "icon window" for my scan sessions and am > now unable to select which shots to scan. I'm sorry to say that when you "hang around" with the likes of the people on those shows, you shouldn't be surprised when things turn up missing ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Numbering problem. (VueScan 6.4.6)
In a message dated 1/15/2001 6:00:36 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I then copied those 18 from the VUESCAN folder into my 1975 > slide folder. I then erased all except Kiel0018.jpg from the VUESCAN > folder so that the next half session would find that 0018 was the last > number used and add the following 18 files to that but starting at > Kiel0019.jpg. However when I started with slide 19 the file name > stored had become Kiel0001.jpg again. This isn't a reliable way to start the numbering. A better way is to use the file name "kiel0019.jpg". It should then use kiel0019.jpg, kiel0020.jpg, etc. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Numbering problem. (VueScan 6.4.6)
Ed, just a minor numbering problem that I had at the weekend using Ver 6.4.6. I was scanning a roll/box of thirty six 35mm. slides on my Canon FS-2700. I did the first half, 1 - 18 and gave them the name Kiel. VueScan adds the 0001+.jpg to that to give a file name of Kile0001.jpg for the first slide, adding one to each susequent slide. So at the end of the first half I had a set of files like. Kiel0001.jpg Kiel0002.jpg | | Kiel0018.jpg I then copied those 18 from the VUESCAN folder into my 1975 slide folder. I then erased all except Kiel0018.jpg from the VUESCAN folder so that the next half session would find that 0018 was the last number used and add the following 18 files to that but starting at Kiel0019.jpg. However when I started with slide 19 the file name stored had become Kiel0001.jpg again. Regards Chris McBrien.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x problem
In a message dated 1/15/2001 7:53:27 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I've since discovered that if I do NOT click or do > anything with vuescan while it is doing the scan process (preview > and/or scan) that it will do the 100% scan. If I do click, or fiddle > with tabs etc while Vuescan is scanning, I can usually get the 10% > preview that you've observed. I've finally gotten around to fixing this in 6.4.10, and I'll release it today or tomorrow once I get confirmation that some other bugs are fixed. I finally needed to fix it so someone could move or resize the window while a scan is in progress (since this updates the user interface in the Window tab). VueScan 6.4.10 prevents any option from being changed that changes the scanner options or sends commands to a scanner while a scan (or calibration or focus) is in progress. The other thing in 6.4.10 is that I've fixed some problems with the SprintScan 45 and AGFA DuoScan. It turns out that these scanners have CCD's that space the red, green and blue rows 12 pixels apart, while most CCD's have the rows spaced 8 pixels apart. I've modified the code for older Microtek scanners to handle 12 pixel spacing (the SprintScan 45 and AGFA DuoScan are made by Microtek). I think this 12-pixel spacing CCD is an 8000 element CCD made by Kodak and used in scanners that have an 8 inch width at 1000 dpi or a 4 inch width at 2000 dpi. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 10:33 15/01/2001 +, you wrote: >The reason appears to be that they were not selling enough XP dev to >make it worth making it. XP1 developer was not compatible with C41 films, although the opposite was possible. cost has nothing to do with it. >XP1 was also being sold as a film which could be developed in C41 dev >as an alternative. >As a commercial user of both C41 and Xp dev my money was on Xp every >time. sorry, no-one with his right mind would use incompatible developer suited for a minuscule number of films, while the recommended c41 would process both c41 and xp1 >the Mini labs and the Pro labs however could not have their minds >changed and the additional one and three quarter minutes dev time was >viewed as a retrograde step. you cannot ignore laws of physics and economics. BTW, c41 film developed in xp1 developer is not developed to its optimal quality. You can play with BW films, but not with color negs. >bottom line is that profit beat quality. it's called engineering. the films was designed to be processed in c41 developer with replenishment. you cannot run commercially viable minilab if you stuff processing. it is quality, not dollars. xp1 worked well only with xp1 films. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits?
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:59:57 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Then somewhere downstream other sales people > mess it all up by not appreciating the niceties of what was agreed > elsewhere and plonk in the new figure with what they think is a > "synonymous" name. In the context of marketing, 'dynamic range' and 'density range' seem interchangeable - neither lets you know exactly what is meant or how they derived the impressive-sounding number. I rather think that's the intention:) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:33:14 - Michael Wilkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > XP1 was also being sold as a film which could be developed in C41 dev > as an alternative. > As a commercial user of both C41 and Xp dev my money was on Xp every > time. My experience too. XPI in C41 was not as nice. XP2 is fine, though personally I prefer TMax400CN these days. Which has very little base tint BTW, and also scans very well indeed. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Are we desperately in need of decent film scanning SW?
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:06:21 -0500 Rick Trelles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is it me or it sounds as if we're still desperately in need of some > decent film scanning SW? > > RT No, Vuescan is fine, even with it's approximate preview, provided you pay regard to its limitations. - If you are working for 8bit output, and prepared to stick with sRGB, preview and scan should match AFAICS. - If you are picky enough to want to use a wider gamut, aim for 16bit output tagged with the required space. This won't match the preview, but then you are doing this so you can complete adjustments in PS. Preview only needs to be approximate in this case. I use this latter method, and it works very well indeed. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and Insight/Vuescan software ?
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:42:44 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Enable color profile embedding by clicking the Embed Color Profile box when > choosing a filename for a scanned image. The profile embedded is the output > profile, the same one used to create your image file. " > > This is version 4.5. I read that to mean it should be embedding the profile. Yes, but AFAIK there's no version of 4.5 around in which this is implemented fully as described, they are all betas. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits?
Typically, the image data only falls in part of the range of the CCD, and should be more in the middle, not the ends. >>> Well, that's part of my point. >>You're suggesting treating the CCD non-linearly it appears. >No. I'm saying that the signal to noise ratio changes depending on the >input voltage. I understand that, and I believe if you think it through, you need to treat this nonlinearly in order for it to be meaningful. You are suggesting that the actual dynamic range of the sensor is non-linear, that it is less at the ends of the scale, and higher in the middle. You get less 'usable' bits on the ends. >> There is a thought to that, but I will say, that you're >> probably not going to get any better (read as more usable) >> information from it...would be my first thought. >In my experience there if far less noise in mid tones than dark tones of >a slide. No doubt, but that doesn't necessarily translate into more usable information, if the system already is designed to take advantage of it. >> I believe that doing either multiple exposures and/or >> multiple input ranges pretty much does the same thing, >> doesn't it? > That's something else. But gives the same results. I believe your idea is really limited by the 'resolution' of the CCD, ie, its ability to discriminate...where noise will eventually overcome any advantage additional bits will give you. I would hope that the number of bits from the A/D 'system' is already matched to the CCD in such a way that 'more' bits wouldn't give you any more usable information.
filmscanners: LS-30 & Vuescan 6.4.9
I have been comparing a Nikon LS-30 and Minolta Scan Dual II. It seems with the LS-30 and Vuescan 6.4.9 there is a green cast on my scans. This is not happening with the Scan Dual II. I am using Fuji NPH 400 Color Negative Film. Thanks, Marc
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and Insight/Vuescan software ?
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:28:16 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What is odd is that when I open the image in Photoshop, I get this message: > > The document's embedded color profile does not match the current RGB Working > space: > > Embedded: Adobe RGB (1998) > Working: Adobe RGB (1998) Like I say, it's beta software and profile embedding is broken. Whatever it says, the embedded space is always sRGB in 8 bit output, none in 16bit output. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 range 8-bit linearly encoded
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:58:19 -0500 Rick Trelles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Sorry, Tony, but it looks like yes, you can. Just multiply by 255/1024 > and round to integer each 1:1024 value. You have your data 8-bit, > linearly coded. Then, when you want to use it, just multiply by > 1024/255. Your range is preserved, you only *lost resolution* by a > lower bit enconding. Cart before horse:) You can do whatever you like once it's digitised, but I'm talking about mapping an analogue voltage ratio to bit values. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.6 Woes...
Hi all I'm having problems with the later versions of Vuescan and was hoping someone might be able to help. I running MacOS9 and scanning on a Canoscan FS2710. For the past 4 months I've been using Vuescan 6.0.2 which was one of the last versions still to have the "Gamma: option, this version has been outputting the best neg scans I have ever seen from my scanner. I upgraded to the next version incorporating "Image Brightness/Contrast" but was unable to get anyway near the excellent scans 6.0.2 output. Just recently, having noticed that the latest version of Vuescan had improvements for the FS2710, I installed Vuescan 6.4.9 and still I get terrible scans even though I have set all the options exactly as the 6.0.2 version. To show just what a difference there is between the 2 versions I've posted images here together with a list of the settings: http://homepage.eircom.net/~ricwalsh/649_scan.htm Click next and previous for images. If someone else has the same set-up I would dearly love to send a copy of 6.02 for them to confirm my output. You may well ask why would I want to upgrade if the scans are excellent from 6.02, well... I'm missing out on the button option which I like, and the manual crop actually works now. Plus I don't want to be left behind as the regular updates are posted. Am I missing some hidden option that will cure this problem. I've asked Ed but he seems to be too busy at the moment. Any help appreciated -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C _) ) --- ' __ /
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
>It used to be printed on photographic paper you know, using the same >filter pack >for an entire roll, or even an entire batch of film! That would be true if the entire roll was shot using the same exposure, lighting, etc. Change your exposure, lighting, etc. and your into a different filter setting. This why we have slope control on automated photo printers. Paul http://okphoto.webjump.com P:250-498-2800 F:250-498-6876
RE: filmscanners: Are we desperately in need of decent film scanning SW?
Tony writes ... > No, Vuescan is fine, even with it's approximate preview, > provided you pay regard to its limitations. > - If you are working for 8bit output, and prepared to stick > with sRGB, preview and scan should match AFAICS. > ... I wonder if my "dark preview" problem isn't because I had selected to scan into a "gamma=1.8" wide gamut profile while my monitor is set to 2.2. It was a mystery to me why I was the only one experiencing the "dark preview" problem. BTW ... I know that when I say "dark", all of you do not know exactly how dark I am talking about. You can assume "almost really dark" ... darker than you'd believe the difference between 1.8 and 2.2 would cause ... but I'll play with it and get back. If the above is the case, maybe Ed can provide us with a "preview gamma" parameter. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 range 8-bit linearly encoded
Tony Sleep wrote > > Sorry, Tony, but it looks like yes, you can. Just multiply by 255/1024 > and round to integer each 1:1024 value. You have your data 8-bit, > linearly coded. Then, when you want to use it, just multiply by > 1024/255. Your range is preserved, you only *lost resolution* by a > lower bit enconding. Cart before horse:) You can do whatever you like once it's digitised, but I'm talking about mapping an analogue voltage ratio to bit values. < The voltage ratio is already mapped to the DAC imput range (0-2V or other) in the 1:1024 innitial example. Just exchange its 10-bit 0-1023 DAC with an 8-bit 0-255 one with the same imput range. Output data hardly different than with the digital convertion above. Regards, Rick Trelles
Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 range 8-bit linearly encoded
*I* wrote: > The voltage ratio is already mapped to the DAC imput range (0-2V or other) in the 1:1024 innitial example. Just exchange its 10-bit 0-1023 DAC with an 8-bit 0-255 one with the same imput range. Output data hardly different than with the digital convertion above. < Of course, I meant ADC instead of DAC. Sorry. RT
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Roman [iso-8859-1] Kielich® wrote: > Indeed, the negative films were, are and will be designed primarily to > be copied onto a positive medium, to wit a photographic paper. The > reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a > magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years > ago, and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying > not watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend > somebody else wrote: > >to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange > >masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic > >printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes where > >the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some time to > >the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be optimized for > >digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play as a > >factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the > >differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be > >negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be > >assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion? This brought up a thought: If a film were designed for scanning without considerations for conventional printing, what characteristics would it include? Could there be a negative film (with its broad exposure latitude), but with no orange mask? What else?
Re: filmscanners: orange mask, rather off topic
Im always interested in other users views on materials and equipment which I use. Im surprised to see Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] say that XP1 Dev was not compatible with C41 film because as I stated earlier I used it for ALL my C41 work with a consistency that was unchallenged by C41 developers at that time . I can assure you that at 54 years of age and having been a working photographer since I was 16,processing all my own film from b+w through E3 to current C41 etc I am in my "right mind" You can indeed play with Colour neg ,in fact its been my experience that by experimenting with various processes and film combinations including extended process times and mixing up developers from raw ingredients that one can produce not only satisfying results,but also have the background knowledge to extract ones self from a very deep hole when something has gone wrong somewhere along the line. Whilst I most certainly accept that film chemistry engineering is of a high standard but I recall Agfa supplying me with new processing trays for my Agfa print processor that were Teflon coated and asking me to use Champion chemistry rather than their newly introduced paper processing chemistry. They did this as they had got it wrong !! their new chemistry was softening the Plastic on the Agfa processor I was using. They reformulated the developer and contacted me to let me know it was then safe to use. Manufacturers are often making mistakes on "Engineering",just witness recalls on motorcycles,cars,aeroplanes etc.Bug fixes for software, and Ive returned film to manufacturers for faults such as a colour layer missing ,or clear spots all over the emulsion . Manufacturers get it right most of the time thank goodness,but be prepared for the unexpected.If you use enough material it will most certainly happen to you Keep making images Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
I am not a U.S. lawyer; I am a professional commercial photographer by
occupation.
I am neither new to the principles modern color photography nor ignorant of
the history and purposes of the orange mask. I was merely trying to point
out in as inoffensive and rhetorical a way as possible that the set of color
negative films commonly used in contemporary photography are not optimized
for digital uses but for traditional uses. By using a film that is
developed for one usage and optimized to that use for an entirely different
use for which it is not optimized often leads to unintended consequences.
Thus, if you plan to use those films from which to do digital scanning, then
it is important how the mask looks to your eye or the scanner's CCDs and
that the differences are negligible for paper emulsions is irrelevant and
unimportant.
>the negative films were,
>are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, to
>wit a photographic paper.
A bit of an overstatement here. That they were and are designed to be
printed on photographic paper is true enough; but that they have to be in
the future ("will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive
medium") is not necessarily true. There is no reason why said negative
films could not be designed to be optimized for digital uses only (to wit,
dedicated to scanning) in which case such masks might be unnecessary and
replace by profiles that would digitally account for and correct the
unwanted of a cyan and a magenta dye in the negative film in the same way
that color filter packs are utilized today. As far as I know, there is no
good reason why a film similar to transparency film without any orange masks
could not be produced which would display a negative image rather than a
positive image and would be more appropriate for direct scanning and digital
reversing. Now such a thing may very well be impractical but it is not
impossible or illogical.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich®
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask
you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were,
are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, to
wit a photographic paper.
The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a
magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years ago,
and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying not
watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend
reading "Digital Color Management" by Giorganni and Madden.
From your response I gather, you are new to principles of modern color
photography.
At 09:42 14/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> >Bear in mind that it is not important, how does the mask look to your
eye,
> >but how the paper emulsion sees it. and for the paper the differences may
> >be negligible.
>
>So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as
>to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange
>masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic
>printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes
where
>the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some time to
>the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be optimized
for
>digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play as a
>factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the
>differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be
>negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be
>assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion?
filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.10 Available
I just released VueScan 6.4.10 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in VueScan 6.4.10 * Fixed problem with 24-bit RGB scans on Canon FS2710 * Fixed problem with infrared channel on ScanWit 2740S * Fixed problem with Polaroid SprintScan 45 * Fixed problem with AGFA DuoScan * Fixed problem with some older Microtek scanners * Disabled changing some options or executing some commands while scanning or focusing Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
> Not really following this thread so I may be missing your intent...but > whenever I've tried increasing exposure beyond "proper exposure", the CCD > saturates (ie blooms) on those pixels that were already bright. This > spills > over into the neighbouring dark pixels and ruins them. > > Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. Anyone know if any of the linear CCDs used in scanners have this? A way around this problem is to throw away any pixels above a certain value PLUS its neighbors. These pixels get their values from a lower exposure pass. I have implemented this type of multi exposure for a completely different type of application and it works fairly well.
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.10 Available
6.4.10 (!), Ed must have something big planned for 6.5! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 1:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.10 Available > > > I just released VueScan 6.4.10 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. > It can be downloaded from: > > http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html > > What's new in VueScan 6.4.10 > > * Fixed problem with 24-bit RGB scans on Canon FS2710 > > * Fixed problem with infrared channel on ScanWit 2740S > > * Fixed problem with Polaroid SprintScan 45 > > * Fixed problem with AGFA DuoScan > > * Fixed problem with some older Microtek scanners > > * Disabled changing some options or executing some > commands while scanning or focusing > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick >
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of manufacturers to provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing. Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film. Considering the capabilities of digital technology, it seems to me that the primary adjustments will be to minimize grain size and the ability of a scanner to neutralize the orange masks required for paper processes. As long as there is a film market, it seems that the prudent move for a manufacturer would be to optimize their films for both the film and digital markets for economic purposes (theirs and ours). Most of us have had to burn and dodge, adjust exposure time, and mess with color balance to achieve the results we wanted when developing prints. Unless we take the perfect photo that needs no tweaking or croping, we will have to adjust scans in the same ways. Maybe the scanner industry has to put more time and effort into optimizing the ability to scan film stock rather than expecting the film industry to adjust to the scanners. Gordon Laurie Solomon wrote: > There is no reason why said negative films could not be designed to be > optimized for digital uses only ... Now such a thing may very well be > impractical but it is not > impossible or illogical.
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120nowonB+H web
> > It is this last point that is the bone of contention - manufacturers are > > saying "ours is 14 bits so our density range is 4.2 wow isn't that a > good > > figure", and that is probably crap in the case of the consumer level > > scanners we are talking about. It MAY be 4.2 but is most likely is much > > less than that - that is all I am saying ... I think. > > It's certainly crap if they don't use a special technique like split > exposure > multi-scanning. > All the available CCDs on the market today are limited to a dynamic range > of > 5000:1 (~12 bits) at normal temperatures. > I'm not sure if the upcoming CMOS sensors will do any better. > > It's called "How to lie with statistics". When the method used to claim a dMax (or dRange or ...) is not precisely defined, you can make up anything that makes sense. One way the manufactures can "lie" is to measure two patches, one with an OD of 4.2 and one with an OD much larger (opaque). The opaque patch might have an average value of 100 (out of 2^14 = 16,384) while the 4.2 patch might read 101. Never mind than the pixels in each patch have a range of 50 to 150, the average values are different. The two patches _can_ be distinguished, but only because a large number of pixels are in each patch. For example, if each patch contains 100 pixels and the noise is random, then the noise would be reduced by a factor of 10 (this is similar to multi-sampling 10 times) and the manufacturer might claim that the dynamic range is not just 5,000 but rather 50,000 (dRange = 4.7)! Just be glad that the manufacturers don't carry this to its absurd limit - over the entire 4,000 by 6,000 pixel slide this would reduce the noise by a factor of 4,900 for a dRange of 24,500,000:1 = 7.4! Hey, I think I will start my own company. ;-)
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
>From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:10:01 -0600 > >There is no reason why said negative >films could not be designed to be optimized for digital uses only (to wit, >dedicated to scanning) in which case such masks might be unnecessary and >replace by profiles that would digitally account for and correct the >unwanted of a cyan and a magenta dye in the negative film in the same way >that color filter packs are utilized today. As far as I know, there is no >good reason why a film similar to transparency film without any orange >masks >could not be produced which would display a negative image rather than a >positive image and would be more appropriate for direct scanning and >digital >reversing. Now such a thing may very well be impractical but it is not >impossible or illogical. Along these same lines, would it be possible to produce a positive film that has characteristics better suited to scanning, e.g., lower contrast and maybe less density in the shadows? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Numbering problem. (VueScan 6.4.6)
Ed, you meant to say "kiel0019+.jpg", not "kiel0019.jpg", didn't you? --Dana -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Numbering problem. (VueScan 6.4.6) Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:06 AM In a message dated 1/15/2001 6:00:36 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I then copied those 18 from the VUESCAN folder into my 1975 > slide folder. I then erased all except Kiel0018.jpg from the VUESCAN > folder so that the next half session would find that 0018 was the last > number used and add the following 18 files to that but starting at > Kiel0019.jpg. However when I started with slide 19 the file name > stored had become Kiel0001.jpg again. This isn't a reliable way to start the numbering. A better way is to use the file name "kiel0019.jpg". It should then use kiel0019.jpg, kiel0020.jpg, etc. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
Perhaps a silly question, but then again, the only silly or stupid question is the one you don't ask This group seems to be fairly proficient in the technical sides of both film scanning and film processing... The question.. would it not be possible to use an E-6 process film as a neg film without the orange mask... It has been many years since I processed transparency film, but if I recall, there are two developers, one to develop the latent image, the other to effect the reversal... so why not take it to the first developer stage... or maybe C-41 would work... I don't know and don't have the tech books anymore to look it up... just a thought Mike Moore Gordon Tassi wrote: > If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of manufacturers to > provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing. > Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film. Considering the capabilities of > digital technology, it seems to me that the primary adjustments will be to > minimize grain size and the ability of a scanner to neutralize the orange masks > required for paper processes. As long as there is a film market, it seems that > the prudent move for a manufacturer would be to optimize their films for both > the film and digital markets for economic purposes (theirs and ours). > > Most of us have had to burn and dodge, adjust exposure time, and mess with color > balance to achieve the results we wanted when developing prints. Unless we take > the perfect photo that needs no tweaking or croping, we will have to adjust > scans in the same ways. Maybe the scanner industry has to put more time and > effort into optimizing the ability to scan film stock rather than expecting the > film industry to adjust to the scanners. > > Gordon > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > There is no reason why said negative films could not be designed to be > > optimized for digital uses only ... Now such a thing may very well be > > impractical but it is not > > impossible or illogical.
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
What you say is more or less the case. I do not think it is possible to OPTIMIZE any given film emulsion so as to meet the necessary criteria and needs of both digital and traditional. What is being done now is an attempt to reach a compromise in the areas of grain structure, dye cloud structure, contrast range, and shadow denisties so that the films like Supra will be usable and acceptible to both classes of users. I personally do not think that such compromises at this stage involve changing the orange masking in any way. If this does take place, it will be when the digital scanning market is large enough to support a dedicated scanner film optimized exclusively for digital scanning with no conern for traditional chemical printing; only then will we see films for scanning and films for traditional printing IMO. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of manufacturers to provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing. Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film. Considering the capabilities of digital technology, it seems to me that the primary adjustments will be to minimize grain size and the ability of a scanner to neutralize the orange masks required for paper processes. As long as there is a film market, it seems that the prudent move for a manufacturer would be to optimize their films for both the film and digital markets for economic purposes (theirs and ours). Most of us have had to burn and dodge, adjust exposure time, and mess with color balance to achieve the results we wanted when developing prints. Unless we take the perfect photo that needs no tweaking or croping, we will have to adjust scans in the same ways. Maybe the scanner industry has to put more time and effort into optimizing the ability to scan film stock rather than expecting the film industry to adjust to the scanners. Gordon Laurie Solomon wrote: > There is no reason why said negative films could not be designed to be > optimized for digital uses only ... Now such a thing may very well be > impractical but it is not > impossible or illogical.
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
My understanding is that those sorts of properties are what the film manufacturers currently are trying to control and adjust in their new film emulsions such as Supra. But so far they have not taken the step of eliminating the orange mask; I would suspect that is because a negative film without it would be a film truely dedicated and optimized for scanning exclusively, which would mean that they would lose those who shoot negative film with traditional processing and printing in mind, which currently still represents a significant proportion of the market. By making slight minor adjustments to things like contrast and shadow density, they can service both types of customers ( although neither necessarily would be getting optimal quality IMO.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henry Richardson Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask >From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:10:01 -0600 > >There is no reason why said negative >films could not be designed to be optimized for digital uses only (to wit, >dedicated to scanning) in which case such masks might be unnecessary and >replace by profiles that would digitally account for and correct the >unwanted of a cyan and a magenta dye in the negative film in the same way >that color filter packs are utilized today. As far as I know, there is no >good reason why a film similar to transparency film without any orange >masks >could not be produced which would display a negative image rather than a >positive image and would be more appropriate for direct scanning and >digital >reversing. Now such a thing may very well be impractical but it is not >impossible or illogical. Along these same lines, would it be possible to produce a positive film that has characteristics better suited to scanning, e.g., lower contrast and maybe less density in the shadows? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
In a message dated 1/15/2001 5:11:47 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My understanding is that those sorts of properties are what the film > manufacturers currently are trying to control and adjust in their new film > emulsions such as Supra. But so far they have not taken the step of > eliminating the orange mask; Removing the orange mask wouldn't make scanning any easier. This is by far the least difficult step in scanning negative film. The four hardest parts of scanning negative film are, from most difficult to least difficult: 1) White balance 2) Compressing negative film intensity range 3) Color correction for CCD and film dyes 4) Sensitometric curves for film dyes When printing film on paper, steps 3&4 are done automatically by the characteristics of the paper and the filters used, and steps 1&2 are done slightly differently by each minilab manufacturer. Whether the film has an orange mask or not doesn't make any of these four things any easier or harder. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: What is a photomultiplier tube
Dieder wrote: > Ok, what with all the discussion about CCDs, A/D conversion > etc, what is the difference between the CCDs of a high end > scanner and the photomultiplier tubes of a drum scanner. How > do they compare, what are their differences? CCD stands for "charge coupled device". It's an element on a chip which generates a response to light striking the upper surface. I know little about how photomultiplier tubes work - I believe it's a similar principle except that photomultipliers are vaccuum tube technology. Photons entering the photomultiplier generate a shift in charge which can be measured. The net effect is much the same. As far as I'm aware, it's easier to make extremely sensitive photomultipliers than CCDs, and photomultipliers are still often used in extremely low light situations like telescopes. > Why is a drum scanner such a high resolution device? Engineering. :) Sorry, it's a strange response, but if you're making a device that costs over $10,000 you can afford the kind of mechanical components required to get higher resolutions. It's hard to make a cheap, reliable device which accurately scans at resolutions over 4000dpi. 8000dpi is roughly 0.003mm per pixel, which is a miniscle amount of movement - the slightest vibration could cause problems. BTW AFAIK some drum scanners use lasers as their light source which makes it much easier to scan dense films due to the intensity of the light. Anyone with more detailed knowledge of all these things feel free to correct me - I'm just trying to provide a precis. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: how do I decode your images?
when you guys send images to each other all I get is a long list of characters. sorry for my ignorance, but can you tell me what's up? do I need to switch something on/download something? (PC, Win 95, Outlook 98) thanks, PG
filmscanners: negative masks
snip> So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic printing on photographic papers...
Re: filmscanners: LS-30 & Vuescan 6.4.9
>I have been comparing a Nikon LS-30 and Minolta Scan Dual II. >It seems with the LS-30 and Vuescan 6.4.9 there is a green cast on my scans. >This is not happening with the Scan Dual II. > >I am using Fuji NPH 400 Color Negative Film. I tried same NPH frame on both 6.4.4 and 6.4.9 with my LS-30 (pc, BruceRGB, Color->Image Brightness=1). I did observe a few minor tone and color differences, but no more than I'm accustomed to dealing with in Photoshop (16-bit mode files). I did see a rather bizarre interaction of the clean option selection and preview color: turning on the clean option drove preview darker and to cyan; but it did not affect scan results and later was not repeatable. I had been experimenting with the new Image Brightness control so there may have been something going on there that I missed. Ed says this control will do brightening better than in PS (?) or at least (in Ed's words): the colors don't fade when you use it to increase the brightness. It works quite well, and it does something that you can't do with curves in Photoshop. I do get dark images with image brightness=default 1 (6.4.4 and 6.4.9), but I don't seem to get better results (or better/different color) increasing this value in vuescan before going to photoshop vs adjusting image in PS. It's hard to experiment with without a reliable preview image, and I have not been able to see its effects -- what it is doing -- vs what I can do with default 16-bit mode file in photoshop. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: What is a photomultiplier tube
At 23:50 15/01/01, Dieder wrote: >Ok, what with all the discussion about CCDs, A/D conversion etc, what is >the difference between the CCDs of a high end scanner and the >photomultiplier tubes of a drum scanner. How do they compare, what are >their differences? Why is a drum scanner such a high resolution device? I am not greatly into this technology, so I'll make a guess about a couple of things and those who know can correct me. Photomultipliers differ from CCDs in that they have internal amplification and hence can be more sensitive. The only ones I have ever seen are bulky and thus could not be used in arrays like CCDs, so my GUESS is that drum scanners use only one or a limited number of photomultipliers, and move it across the image to cover the whole territory. I have never seen a drum scanner so this is a guess, pleas correct me if this is not true. I am assuming that the purpose of the drum is to make it easy to spin the image past the sensor for one line of resolution, then move the sensor up one line and read the next line. If that is true, then because you only have one sensor, you can engineer it to greater tolerances, and read a smaller spot size and thus get better resolution. Because you only have one sensor too, you can design the amplifier and subsequent circuitry in a more expensive way and thus get better performance - or at least you don't need the switches that you would need to read an array of sensors. And because you only have one sensor you don't have the problem of matching the response of thousands of different sensors and their associated switching circuitry etc., as you do for CCD array scanners. Hope this helps, or elicits more accurate information, Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Are we desperately in need of decent film scanning SW?
At 02:56 16/01/01, shAf :o) wrote: > I wonder if my "dark preview" problem isn't because I had selected to >scan into a "gamma=1.8" wide gamut profile while my monitor is set to >2.2. It was a mystery to me why I was the only one experiencing the >"dark preview" problem. > BTW ... I know that when I say "dark", all of you do not know exactly >how dark I am talking about. You can assume "almost really dark" ... >darker than you'd believe the difference between 1.8 and 2.2 would >cause ... but I'll play with it and get back. > If the above is the case, maybe Ed can provide us with a "preview >gamma" parameter. I haven't been following this in detail, but when I tried ver 6.4.5 last week, I got dark as in black or nearly black scans, then I changed white point from 0 to 0.5% and it all worked ok. This may or not be related to what you are experiencing, if not please ignore. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
At 05:28 16/01/01, "Shough, Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. Anyone know >if any of the linear CCDs used in scanners have this? A way around this >problem is to throw away any pixels above a certain value PLUS its >neighbors. These pixels get their values from a lower exposure pass. I >have implemented this type of multi exposure for a completely different type >of application and it works fairly well. Can you tell me how you do this - do you do it in PS or do you use some more specific method? I have the same problem when trying to extract the most from some high contrast slides, and have not been really happy with some of my multiple exposure scans for this reason. Regards, Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
If my understandings of the E-6 process are correct, there are two developing processes and a bleaching process followed by a redevelopment process. The first development process develops the latent image on the transparency film as a black and white image; the second development process adds the color. At this stage in the game the film contains a color negative image. It is then bleached and redeveloped which reverses the image and transforms it from a negative color image to a positive color image. To do what you suggest, it would have to take place after the second developer and before the bleaching process. At that point there would need to be some sort of permanent fixing process to fix the negative color image on the film. I do not know if it is possible to insert such a fixing process into that stage of the process or how it would be done. It just might be the case that the existing image at that stage in the game might be too fragile to permanently fix or there may not be appropriate fixers to do it. I do think it is possible to do this after the first developer when the negative image is black and white. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask Perhaps a silly question, but then again, the only silly or stupid question is the one you don't ask This group seems to be fairly proficient in the technical sides of both film scanning and film processing... The question.. would it not be possible to use an E-6 process film as a neg film without the orange mask... It has been many years since I processed transparency film, but if I recall, there are two developers, one to develop the latent image, the other to effect the reversal... so why not take it to the first developer stage... or maybe C-41 would work... I don't know and don't have the tech books anymore to look it up... just a thought Mike Moore Gordon Tassi wrote: > If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of manufacturers to > provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing. > Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film. Considering the capabilities of > digital technology, it seems to me that the primary adjustments will be to > minimize grain size and the ability of a scanner to neutralize the orange masks > required for paper processes. As long as there is a film market, it seems that > the prudent move for a manufacturer would be to optimize their films for both > the film and digital markets for economic purposes (theirs and ours). > > Most of us have had to burn and dodge, adjust exposure time, and mess with color > balance to achieve the results we wanted when developing prints. Unless we take > the perfect photo that needs no tweaking or croping, we will have to adjust > scans in the same ways. Maybe the scanner industry has to put more time and > effort into optimizing the ability to scan film stock rather than expecting the > film industry to adjust to the scanners. > > Gordon > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > There is no reason why said negative films could not be designed to be > > optimized for digital uses only ... Now such a thing may very well be > > impractical but it is not > > impossible or illogical.
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and Insight/Vuescan software ?
Tony, Thanks. Polaroid should have put that fact in their docs or readmes. Stan Schwartz http://home.swbell.net/snsok -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and Insight/Vuescan software ? On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:28:16 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What is odd is that when I open the image in Photoshop, I get this message: > > The document's embedded color profile does not match the current RGB Working > space: > > Embedded: Adobe RGB (1998) > Working: Adobe RGB (1998) Like I say, it's beta software and profile embedding is broken. Whatever it says, the embedded space is always sRGB in 8 bit output, none in 16bit output. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
Ed, with the deepest of respect, since you cite a quote from me, I feel some compulsion to respond. I do not believe that I stated or implied that removal of the orange mask was difficult to do or would make scanning easier. Others with whom I was corresponding seemed to feel that the orange mask presented a problem for scanning ( especially the variation in the nature of the mask densities and color); I did not weigh in on that topic myself. I did say that there was no logical reason why said mask could not be removed from color negative films resulting in a color negative without such a mask. I also noted that such a removal of the orange mask would quite possibly result in a film that was truly dedicated exclusively to scanning since its removal would result in the film not being able to be used for traditional photographic printing processes which as I understand it require the use of a mask. By "dedicated," I did not mean to imply that it would make scanning easier or better- or even that it would be necessary to quality scanning; I simply meant that such a film would be usable only by persons who would scan it and would not be utilizable by those who rely on the traditional photographic processing practices. I did say that the film manufacturers have not taken the step of removing the mask for their special scanner films yet for purely practical economic reasons and not because it was difficult to do. I further suggested that the steps that they have taken so far are compromises related to film emulsion properties the would not result in excluding one class or another of the user base. If I have misunderstood you arguments, I do apologize and would request clarification. If I am in error on my part with respect to my understandings and facts, I also apologize and would appreciate correction. While informative, I do think your points are better addressed to others involved in the discussion rather than me. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask In a message dated 1/15/2001 5:11:47 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My understanding is that those sorts of properties are what the film > manufacturers currently are trying to control and adjust in their new film > emulsions such as Supra. But so far they have not taken the step of > eliminating the orange mask; Removing the orange mask wouldn't make scanning any easier. This is by far the least difficult step in scanning negative film. The four hardest parts of scanning negative film are, from most difficult to least difficult: 1) White balance 2) Compressing negative film intensity range 3) Color correction for CCD and film dyes 4) Sensitometric curves for film dyes When printing film on paper, steps 3&4 are done automatically by the characteristics of the paper and the filters used, and steps 1&2 are done slightly differently by each minilab manufacturer. Whether the film has an orange mask or not doesn't make any of these four things any easier or harder. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: negative masks
>Seems a lot of confusion about why the orange mask is there at all. Not on my part. >Moreover, this is >true of all film dye layers, and is why a negative is more accurate as a >carrier of colour information than a transparency. I think this is a questionable assertion. I do not know if negatives are more accurate than transparencies as a carrier of color information; I do know that negative film is more tolerant of exposure errors and of color casts than transparencies. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAM Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:05 PM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Subject: filmscanners: negative masks snip> So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic printing on photographic papers...
RE: filmscanners: how do I decode your images?
Paul wrote: > when you guys send images to each other all I get is a > long list of characters. sorry for my ignorance, but > can you tell me what's up? do I need to switch > something on/download something? (PC, Win 95, Outlook 98) The long list of characters is the binary file translated into ASCII text. It could be encoded using a number of methods, but most current email programs should decode them for you automatically. Outlook 98 *should* be smart enough to automatically decode UUEncoded, Base64 or MIME attachements, but from your description it's not for some reason in your situation. You could try installing the latest version of Internet Explorer and using Outlook Express instead; IE 5.01 SP1 should work just fine. I don't have Outlook to be able to check, but there may be a setting somewhere to enable MIME attachments. An early version of Outlook I used certainly was able to make sense of MIME attachments. Another possibility is that your ISP's mail server is mangling the attachments somehow. If you must use Outlook 98, you may have to find a decoder. Back in the early days of Win95 I use a program called UUDeview which may still be available on the net somewhere like www.tucows.com for download. You save the text to a file, then run it through UUDeview, which decodes it into the picture or whatever it may be. There are other similar tools around. Rob PS If you are using Outlook and/or Outlook Express make certain you have a decent virus scanner which is up to date, and install the security patches from Microsoft so you are not vulnerable to viruses or worms which exploit the holes in Microsoft's security. I use McAfee Virus Scan. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: What is a photomultiplier tube
At 11:43 AM 1/16/01 +1100, Julian wrote: >If that is true, then because you only have one sensor, you can engineer it >to greater tolerances, and read a smaller spot size and thus get better >resolution. Because you only have one sensor too, you can design the >amplifier and subsequent circuitry in a more expensive way and thus get >better performance - or at least you don't need the switches that you would >need to read an array of sensors. And because you only have one sensor you >don't have the problem of matching the response of thousands of different >sensors and their associated switching circuitry etc., as you do for CCD >array scanners. > >Hope this helps, or elicits more accurate information, Correct -- there's only one sensor element in a drum scanner, and that's the PMT tube. But in both cases -- drum or CCD -- the data arrives at the A/D as an analog-serial data stream. Matching the responses of each CCD element is the responsibility of the scanner's calibration system, and is typically done by scanning a white reference just before each scan. The math is pretty straightforward, but has to be done for each pixel, of course. I'm actually a bit puzzled, myself, as to why drum scanners are (were?) so damned expensive. Aside from the rotating drum, the mechanical considerations aren't that tough, it seems to me. Nothing a decent South Bend lathe can't handle. I think it's a matter of a very limited market. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: orange mask & E6
At 7:27 PM -0600 1/15/01, Laurie Solomon wrote: >If my understandings of the E-6 process are correct, there are two >developing processes and a bleaching process followed by a redevelopment >process. The first development process develops the latent image on the >transparency film as a black and white image; the second development process >adds the color. At this stage in the game the film contains a color >negative image. It is then bleached and redeveloped which reverses the >image and transforms it from a negative color image to a positive color >image. > >To do what you suggest, it would have to take place after the second >developer and before the bleaching process. At that point there would need >to be some sort of permanent fixing process to fix the negative color image >on the film. I do not know if it is possible to insert such a fixing >process into that stage of the process or how it would be done. It just >might be the case that the existing image at that stage in the game might be >too fragile to permanently fix or there may not be appropriate fixers to do >it. I do think it is possible to do this after the first developer when the >negative image is black and white. Hi Laurie, The E6 process is a bit different from what you remember. The steps, in order, are First Developer, then the Reversal Bath, then the Colour Developer (followed by Pre-Bleach, Bleach and Fixer). So, unfortunately, you won't have a negative colour image after the second (Colour) developer. Now, I wonder what would happen if you left out the reversal bath and went straight to the Colour Developer... I've never bothered to try such a drastic move, but it might be interesting. Regards, Roger Smith
RE: filmscanners: orange mask & E6
I stand corrected. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Smith Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask & E6 At 7:27 PM -0600 1/15/01, Laurie Solomon wrote: >If my understandings of the E-6 process are correct, there are two >developing processes and a bleaching process followed by a redevelopment >process. The first development process develops the latent image on the >transparency film as a black and white image; the second development process >adds the color. At this stage in the game the film contains a color >negative image. It is then bleached and redeveloped which reverses the >image and transforms it from a negative color image to a positive color >image. > >To do what you suggest, it would have to take place after the second >developer and before the bleaching process. At that point there would need >to be some sort of permanent fixing process to fix the negative color image >on the film. I do not know if it is possible to insert such a fixing >process into that stage of the process or how it would be done. It just >might be the case that the existing image at that stage in the game might be >too fragile to permanently fix or there may not be appropriate fixers to do >it. I do think it is possible to do this after the first developer when the >negative image is black and white. Hi Laurie, The E6 process is a bit different from what you remember. The steps, in order, are First Developer, then the Reversal Bath, then the Colour Developer (followed by Pre-Bleach, Bleach and Fixer). So, unfortunately, you won't have a negative colour image after the second (Colour) developer. Now, I wonder what would happen if you left out the reversal bath and went straight to the Colour Developer... I've never bothered to try such a drastic move, but it might be interesting. Regards, Roger Smith
