Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Frank writes ... > That sounds more like the limitations of a mapping algorithm than any > limitations that we might find in nature. > I suppose you could put that way. Rather, I imagine the RGB data model ... a cube with black and white at opposite apexes, and "data pure" red, green, blue, cyan, magenta & yellow at the others ... and then I can't imagine nature's colors mapping, point for point, to such a simplistic model. As far as I know however, all device gamuts and device independent color spaces do map to points inside the RGB model (but not to such data values as 0-0-255). Not much of a point really. I'm sure many readers are saying ... "duh". My original point was for someone somewhat befuddled with profiles. From my own experience, I didn't realize any reason for profiles 'til I realized all devices do not see the same colors, as intense or not at all. The simplistic superposition of the RGB model on color was also another realization which helped me grasp the concepts. I just threw it in for conversation, not argument. shAf :o) > > Say you have a perfect camera, perfect film, and a > > perfect scanner ... and your image of a "natural" subject > > ends up in Photoshop. You will never see the pixel > > value 0-0-255 ... and in fact, there are a number of > > RGB values you'll never find. > > > > shAf :o) > > > >
Re: filmscanners: orange mask/Low contrast tranny
How about pre-fogging trans. film? Does anybody really do that to reduce contrast? Jon __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
The experience I've had with Provia 100F in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where it is overcast 9 months out of the year, is that it is actually best when overcast. If I take pictures of a forested scene that is hundreds of feet away (e.g. a waterfalls with surrounding moss-covered cliffs) with a blue sky (but no direct sunlight), there is a discouraging blue cast to the whole scene. (I can fix most of this in the scanning process.) The colors are much more realistic if the same scene is taken with an overcast sky. Also, for closeups deep within the forest, even with a blue sky, colors are great with no blue overcast. Does anyone have an explanation for this behavior? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:20:28 +1100 Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?= > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > ?? speed? When I started photography, 15-18 DIN (25-50 ASA) films were > > standard, and DIN 27/ASA 400 were terribly high speed! BTW, it was in > > continental Europe (same problem with seasons and light). > > No, not speed, Provia's vile and somewhat erratic insistence on > heavy blue casts and > magenta-blue shadows if shown murky, cold colour temps. Even an > 81a or 81b don't seem > to help. Although they warm things up, colour is poor. Fuji kept > RDP in production > specifically because of the howls of protest from UK snappers, > but then decided they > could fob us off with Astia, which is slightly more even-tempered > than Provia in such > conditions. An awful lot of people switched to Ektachrome 100SW > as a result. An > excellent film for UK murk, but it dislikes direct sunlight and > goes over-warm. > > Don't get me wrong, Provia is wonderful stuff if you live > somewhere sunny or use a > studio. It just malfunctions severely in what passes for weather > in UK for much of the > year. The newer 'F' version is better, as the not entirely > unrelated Astia was, but > neither come close to RDP for even-temperedness. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film > scanner info & > comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
"Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > suspect, kodak may have done similar. let me know teh results of your > experiment before February (I am heading to Coffs in two weeks). On a related topic, here's two jpegs I scanned off the roll of Provia 400F. The photo was scanned at 2700dpi using an LS30 and Vuescan 6.4.10. One jpeg shows the full image frame and the other is a crop of one flower head at 1:1. The grain is a bit lost in the jpeg artifacts - if anyone really wants an artifact free version of the crop, I could make a PNG version - email me directly. Yes, the grain is noticeable but I wouldn't say it's horrible. It seems OK for a 400ASA slide film and better than any colour neg I've tried. A roll of Supra 100 is being processed right now. I'll try scanning it later. Rob provia_400_crop.jpg provia_400_full.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I am just wondering which of the new scanners (IV or 4000) is a best buy (hobby > purpose). > Of course 4000 is superior but the specification of IV seems to be better than > LS2000 which is a decent scanner. > I am interested in your opinion what is a better solution ? Wait and see. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:20:28 +1100 Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > ?? speed? When I started photography, 15-18 DIN (25-50 ASA) films were > standard, and DIN 27/ASA 400 were terribly high speed! BTW, it was in > continental Europe (same problem with seasons and light). No, not speed, Provia's vile and somewhat erratic insistence on heavy blue casts and magenta-blue shadows if shown murky, cold colour temps. Even an 81a or 81b don't seem to help. Although they warm things up, colour is poor. Fuji kept RDP in production specifically because of the howls of protest from UK snappers, but then decided they could fob us off with Astia, which is slightly more even-tempered than Provia in such conditions. An awful lot of people switched to Ektachrome 100SW as a result. An excellent film for UK murk, but it dislikes direct sunlight and goes over-warm. Don't get me wrong, Provia is wonderful stuff if you live somewhere sunny or use a studio. It just malfunctions severely in what passes for weather in UK for much of the year. The newer 'F' version is better, as the not entirely unrelated Astia was, but neither come close to RDP for even-temperedness. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask/Low contrast tranny
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:12:34 - Michael Wilkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Despite protestations from others on the list concerning only processing > at industry standards > it is easy to reduce contrast on tranny film. > You do need to experiment but basically you need to overexpose and > underdevelop. > For a long time we used this technique to make duplicate transparencies > until we were able to purchase duplicating film for the job. > We used Ektachrome tungsten,overexposed by 2 stops and reduced the fist > dev time from 7 minutes to 5 minutes. > To stop anyone shouting what about the cross curves we used a different > filter pack to compensate. > this is a simple technique which works exceedingly well but you must > experiment. I must admit I have always regarded pulling colour film as a Very Bad Thing, because of the crossed curves. I know studio guys who do it, to about -1stop max (more usually -2/3 or -1/3, differences I can barely see), but as you say they use CC filters to mitigate the effects. I shoot nearly all 35mm, and CC's really don't fit well with that. > All this talk of a film for scanning gives rise to the thought that the > manufacturers are probably looking at the rapid progress of digital > cameras and saying why bother ! > I use a scan back on my Studio camera and the resulting digital files > are far superior to those produced on our drum scanner from any make of > film ! > Smooth grain free images with zero noise in the shadow areas and perfect > colour balance at the capture stage with the very minimum of > rectification work needed in Photoshop. > Film still has portability on its side along with easy storage and long > life , but that WILL change . Yes! I've seen the sort of results possible and agree, digital already surpasses film in many respects (oh, the contrast range after tranny:). It's a shame that sort of quality is presently limited to MF/sheet cameras and costs as much as an upmarket car. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
On 17 Jan 2001 07:47:16 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, because I can SEE it. > It's a bright blue. So I don't know what you mean in saying it is not a real > color. I think he meant that it's completely device dependent what colour any RGB value appears as, in any colour space, but I am guessing here... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: scanner lenses
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:26:55 -0800 Bob Shomler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Yes, according to Nikon product data sheets: The 4000 has "7 elements in 4 groups including 3 ED > glass elements" and the 8000 "14 elements in 6 groups including 6 ED glass elements." So the latter is varifocal then, to cope with multiple film formats. Since scanner lenses are neither fast nor called upon to focus across a wide range, there doesn't seem any great reason to panic. Unless it flares, of course :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:29:01 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Except as an index print which it sounds like you were talking > about. :) Well yes and no. They used to do index prints which were about half the neg size, but these are proper contact sheet size and include the film rebate - or reasonable facsimile as they show no frame numbers or mfr info. They otherwise look like contact sheets, but are so soft they aren't helpful for image evaluation. > I believe some of the newer minilabs are actually > doing the 6x4's from scaning the film. Yes. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In w
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:37:46 +0100 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What I have done however, until recently, is make a lot of high-bit scans of > color negative film, let vuescan code them in ProPhotoRGB, do my color > adjustments and convert to 8-bit files for archiving. My priorities were: 1 > archiving, 2 monitor viewing, 3 web use, 4 printing. > I think now the approach taken was wrong for my priorities. > * I should either have converted to a smaller gamut space just before > converting to 8-bit, or > * should never have edited in ProPhotoRGB but in a smaller gamut color > space or > * should have archived the 16-bit files instead (I am reluctant to do > this, I have a little crowded home) I think that if you don't want to do (3), what you are doing is fine. You have avoided the major wreckage of values by editing in 16 bits before reducing to 8 bits. Subsequently converting to a smaller gamut space should theoretically be better done in high bit mode, but I doubt it will make any visible difference - at least none that isn't swamped by other considerations. I mean: every time I print an image I have to reprofile it for the printer, and it's in 8 bits. Plenty of other things go awry, but damage to the histogram is not one of them. If it makes you feel any better, I archive to 8bit files too. The reason: I can only get 10 TIFF's on a CD as it is, and they have to be in a readily accessible and finished form I can send to clients. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:37:58 +0100 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Now I just have to see if I can also see the limitations of gamut, of which > you say they are much more apparent than granularity differences between > color spaces used in 24/48 bit files. I have already seen some sort of > posterization occur in the sky with editing certain high-bit scans of > negative film in ProPhotoRGB where the scene was a heavy backlit one, with a > tower in front and a bride in the shadow of that tower. Of course this could > very well be caused by other factors as e.g. limitations of my scanwit. 'fraid so. For all the theory, hardware will impose its own limitations. What might be millions of colours can turn into a fraction of that, and as soon as you start pulling 'em around in software anything can happen. It's no criticism of the Acer, I've done extreme things to high bit files from several scanners and sooner or later even 16bits ain't enough. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
>i do not want to spend too much money and need recogmendations. How much are you willing to spend and what level of quality will you settle for? Good 20" monitors that have high quality outputs are not cheap compared to the consumer quality 19" than have been showing up. I just bought a Hitachi 20" CM815plus online from Onvia for $970. It is priced at about $1050 and up elsewhere. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask i need to buy a 20 inch pc monitor to to be used with photoshop. i do not want to spend too much money and need recogmendations. i want to get rob sheppard's instructional video on photoshop. does anyone know the name and where to get it. thanks, joanna
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
That sounds more like the limitations of a mapping algorithm than any limitations that we might find in nature. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners > > > Frank writes ... > > > I guess now the question is, what do you mean by "nature"? > > Say you have a perfect camera, perfect film, and a > perfect scanner ... and your image of a "natural" subject > ends up in Photoshop. You will never see the pixel > value 0-0-255 ... and in fact, there are a number of > RGB values you'll never find. > > shAf :o) >
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
Yes they do. Like many things Kodak has attempted, their effort to finish off Kodachrome was not a success. So they can use all the help they can get from whom ever will give it. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask chuck phelps wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:14:09 + Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > digital photography is too young for any real standard, you want a > > film > > > designed for scanning? > > > > I've heard Fuji ProviaF was specifically designed for scanning. > > > Fuji ProviaF was designed to finish off Kodachrome. > Chuck Phelps > Film Service Inc. Actually, Kodak has been trying to "finish off" Kodachrome for years, they don't need Fuji's help. ProviaF seems to have a grain pattern (or lack thereof) which is very friendly to scanners. Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection
Hi Tom It depends on how serious you want to scan your film. For me, Coolscan III is good for me, and of course it's update verion, i.e. IV, should suit my needs. But if you look for serious stuff, u may go for 4000. Simon tom wrote: > Hi, > I am just wondering which of the new scanners (IV or 4000) is a best buy (hobby > purpose). > Of course 4000 is superior but the specification of IV seems to be better than > LS2000 which is a decent scanner. > I am interested in your opinion what is a better solution ? > - buying IV and keeping 1000USD for a new full frame digital body (assuming > that it will be available at > reasonable price 3000~4000USD? within 1-2 years) > - buying 4000 and switch to digital body after 2.5~3 years > I know that nobody knows the perfect answer, just I am curious about your > opinions, advices > > Regards > > Tomasz > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Frank writes ... > I guess now the question is, what do you mean by "nature"? Say you have a perfect camera, perfect film, and a perfect scanner ... and your image of a "natural" subject ends up in Photoshop. You will never see the pixel value 0-0-255 ... and in fact, there are a number of RGB values you'll never find. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling?
This might be the URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.lyons/ Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:32 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling? | Howard wrote: | > Therein lies my problem: how do I turn off color management in the | > Epson driver? | | Ian Lyons has an excellent tutorial about using Wiziwyg which inlcudes info | about the settings of the Epson TWAIN interface. I'm sorry, but I don't | have the URL on me. I think it's the digital darkroom site? | | If you grab some keywords from the above paragraph and feed them into hotbot | or some other search engine it should be easy to find Ian's site. | | Rob | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection
Tomasz, I am at the same decision point as you are. I am holding out for the LS-4000ED. Maybe in two to five years digital backs will be at a quality and price point I can afford. Meanwhile, I'll be working on a giant backload of slides. John At 01:17 AM 1/17/01 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, >I am just wondering which of the new scanners (IV or 4000) is a best buy >(hobby >purpose). >Of course 4000 is superior but the specification of IV seems to be better than >LS2000 which is a decent scanner. >I am interested in your opinion what is a better solution ? >- buying IV and keeping 1000USD for a new full frame digital body (assuming >that it will be available at > reasonable price 3000~4000USD? within 1-2 years) >- buying 4000 and switch to digital body after 2.5~3 years >I know that nobody knows the perfect answer, just I am curious about your >opinions, advices > >Regards > >Tomasz > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Exactly. I don't get his point either. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Daniel Weise > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:53 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners > > > Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you confusing color > resolution with whatever "physical reality" is? If I grant that the > phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and > 0,0,255, how does > this impinge on whether that color "real?" You are conflating two issues, > so I can't follow what argument you are really trying to make. > > > > shAf writes ... > > > Frank writes: > > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, > > because I can SEE it. > > ... > > How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the same color?? > ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between these "pure" > blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in > monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even > without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the L*a*b gamut > ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to > physical reality.
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
chuck phelps wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:14:09 + Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > digital photography is too young for any real standard, you want a > > film > > > designed for scanning? > > > > I've heard Fuji ProviaF was specifically designed for scanning. > > > Fuji ProviaF was designed to finish off Kodachrome. > Chuck Phelps > Film Service Inc. Actually, Kodak has been trying to "finish off" Kodachrome for years, they don't need Fuji's help. ProviaF seems to have a grain pattern (or lack thereof) which is very friendly to scanners. Art
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
I guess now the question is, what do you mean by "nature"? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners > > > > Daniel writes ... > > > Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you > > confusing color resolution with whatever > > "physical reality" is? If I grant that the > > phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and > > 0,0,255, how does this impinge on whether > > that color "real?" You are conflating two issues, > > so I can't follow what argument you are really trying to make. > > I wasn't arguing anything ... merely stating a curiousity that is > also fact ... rather a "believe it, or not" type of curiosity, which I > thought, in the context of the original question was instructive. > When Bruce Fraser explained to me (during a conversation > about L*a*b) > that many RGB "values" (e.g., 0-0-255) are manifestations of RGB which > have no real counterpart in nature, it triggered an "a-ha". It was > then when I realized what RGB pixel values are ... 16 million > possibilities, but only some of them actually are nature's real > colors. I dare say a big part (but not most) of RGB is out of > nature's gamut!!. > My own realization is that "RGB" is a human definition superimposed > on nature. It is much like the limitations of our own language, when > trying to make an abstract point (... is it true the French do it > better?? ...) > > shAf :o) > > > > > > > > shAf writes ... > > > > > Frank writes: > > > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, > > > because I can SEE it. > > > ... > > > > How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the > > same color?? > > ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between > > these "pure" > > blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in > > monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even > > without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the > > L*a*b gamut > > ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to > > physical reality. > > >
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
i need to buy a 20 inch pc monitor to to be used with photoshop. i do not want to spend too much money and need recogmendations. i want to get rob sheppard's instructional video on photoshop. does anyone know the name and where to get it. thanks, joanna
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
I agree with Roman. I think you are being a little over optimistic. While technology is moving fast and the day will come, I do not think that time will be in the immediate future. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask Roman, > you will get your scanner dedicated film as soon as there is market for it. > there still may be a few years before we see something like that. > I doubt that you will get it - by then digital cameras will be so good that there would be no market for such film! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.11 Available
Byron writes ... > Canon FS2710 negatives aren't scanning properly on my > system.They come out looking like negatives (!) > On a Win98SE system. > > Anyone else having similar problems? This happened to me only once with the previous release. At that time, I simply restarted Vuescan and it worked properly. If it happens to you again ... rename the 'vuescan.ini' file and try it. I am taking for granted all your settings are proper, but it never hurts to recheck them (especially after you delete/rename the ini file. shAf :o)
filmscanners: FS2710 neg question
In general, how grainy are negs from the FS2710 compared with the Polaroid and Nikon 35mm scanners? thanks Andy Darlow At 03:18 PM 1/17/01 -0800, you wrote: >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:42 PM >Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.11 Available > > >> What's new in version 6.4.11 >> >> * Improved quality of negative scans on FS2710 > > > >Canon FS2710 negatives aren't scanning properly on my system.They come >out looking like negatives (!) On a Win98SE system. > >Anyone else having similar problems? > >Byron > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Daniel writes ... > Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you > confusing color resolution with whatever > "physical reality" is? If I grant that the > phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and > 0,0,255, how does this impinge on whether > that color "real?" You are conflating two issues, > so I can't follow what argument you are really trying to make. I wasn't arguing anything ... merely stating a curiousity that is also fact ... rather a "believe it, or not" type of curiosity, which I thought, in the context of the original question was instructive. When Bruce Fraser explained to me (during a conversation about L*a*b) that many RGB "values" (e.g., 0-0-255) are manifestations of RGB which have no real counterpart in nature, it triggered an "a-ha". It was then when I realized what RGB pixel values are ... 16 million possibilities, but only some of them actually are nature's real colors. I dare say a big part (but not most) of RGB is out of nature's gamut!!. My own realization is that "RGB" is a human definition superimposed on nature. It is much like the limitations of our own language, when trying to make an abstract point (... is it true the French do it better?? ...) shAf :o) > > > > shAf writes ... > > > Frank writes: > > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, > > because I can SEE it. > > ... > > How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the > same color?? > ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between > these "pure" > blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in > monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even > without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the > L*a*b gamut > ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to > physical reality. >
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
Roman, > you will get your scanner dedicated film as soon as there is market for it. > there still may be a few years before we see something like that. > I doubt that you will get it - by then digital cameras will be so good that there would be no market for such film! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.11 Available
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.11 Available > What's new in version 6.4.11 > > * Improved quality of negative scans on FS2710 Canon FS2710 negatives aren't scanning properly on my system.They come out looking like negatives (!) On a Win98SE system. Anyone else having similar problems? Byron
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you confusing color resolution with whatever "physical reality" is? If I grant that the phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and 0,0,255, how does this impinge on whether that color "real?" You are conflating two issues, so I can't follow what argument you are really trying to make. shAf writes ... > Frank writes: > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, > because I can SEE it. > ... How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the same color?? ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between these "pure" blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the L*a*b gamut ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to physical reality.
filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.11 Available
I just released VueScan 6.4.11 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 6.4.11 * Fixed some Mac OS problems by increasing default memory size for VueScan by 10 MBytes (to 85 MBytes) * Added support for ejecting film while processing * Added APS mode for Canon FS2710 * Improved quality of negative scans on FS2710 * Added support for AGFA StudioStar Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Thanks! Have received APS scan from FS2710
I've received two APS scans from the FS2710, and will release VueScan 6.4.10 with this data (and some more fixes) today or tomorrow. Thanks, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 with APS
Hi Ed, I have the scanner and the adapter, but I never used it as I had no need Can do the test overnight, no problem (if it is OK without film) hope the fact I have Vuescan trial version few months old would not make the difference. Can I convert TIFF to JPEG for easier transfer? Greetings from Yugoslavia, Salinger Igor - Original Message - From: <> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:19 PM Subject: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 with APS > Could someone with a Canon FS2710 and an APS > adapter do a test for me? > > I'd like to add a mode to VueScan for scanning APS with > this scanner, and to do this I need to get the positions of > the APS window in the scanning window. > > A simple test that will do this is: ...
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Frank writes ... > Relative to a monitor, 0,0,255 in itself is not a specific > color, real or not. > It depends on what the phosphors do when you feed it > those values, ... That goes without saying ... > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, > because I can SEE it. > ... How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the same color?? ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between these "pure" blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the L*a*b gamut ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to physical reality. shAf :o) > > Tony writes ... > > > > > > A gamut comprises a subset of colours out of infinite > variety. There > > are colours > > > outside it which are simply unavailable and cannot appear in any > > image which uses it. > > > ... > > > > Just to add ... the color gamut which is described by R,G & B > > pixel values, whether it be wide gamut or 16bits/channel, > is a manmade > > concoction of color definitions. There are a number of colors > > described by RGB which aren't even real ... for example 0,0,255. > > Nothing conceptualizes the definition of "gamut" better than "some > > colors described by RGB are outside reality's gamut". > > > > shAf :o) > > > >
filmscanners: Canon FS2710 with APS
Could someone with a Canon FS2710 and an APS adapter do a test for me? I'd like to add a mode to VueScan for scanning APS with this scanner, and to do this I need to get the positions of the APS window in the scanning window. A simple test that will do this is: 1) Run VueScan 2) Turn on "Files|Output raw file" 3) Set "Options|Scan resolution" to lowest value 4) Set "Device|Region" to "Maximum" 5) Set "Crop|Crop size" to "Maximum" 6) Insert APS adapter 7) Press "Scan" button 8) Exit VueScan when done 9) E-mail scan0001.tif to me If someone with an APS adapter could do this, I'd appreciate it (there doesn't have to be any film in it). Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: scanner lenses
>> I noticed that its lens is 14 elements in the 8000, which seems an awful lot >> of glass... now maybe this is great and wonderful > >The Nikon 4000 has 7 elements in 4 groups; is the 8000 really different? Yes, according to Nikon product data sheets: The 4000 has "7 elements in 4 groups including 3 ED glass elements" and the 8000 "14 elements in 6 groups including 6 ED glass elements." -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a
In reading my response, I should further clarify: There are some other (more subtle) differences between 1394-1995 and 1394a, but they lie within the details of the protocol and are largely transparent to the end user. Specifically, 1394a offers improved data traffic control (allowing for higher bus speeds and eliminating some compatibility issues between 1394-1995 devices) and power management. These differences are found largely within what is known as the PHY layer of the protocol. In fact, 1394a is considered an addendum to the original 1394-1995 specification, thereby inheriting all of the requirements of the older specification while supporting new features. The long and the short of it is that a 1394a computer is still compatible with a 1394-1995 peripheral. Interestingly, 1394b is currently in the works, and while apparently maintaining backwards compatibility with previous 1394 specs, provides for significantly higher bandwidth (up to 3.2 Gbits/sec), significantly higher cable length (up to 100 meters), and even provides for the use of fiber optic cabling. Among the target devices for this protocol are hard drives, DVD-RAM, and other extremely high-capacity/high-bandwidth devices. I would guess in implementation it will try to give SCSI a run for its money. More devices can be ganged on a single 1394b controller and connectivity is simpler than SCSI. We shall see. Sorry for the long rambling reponse. Regards, Darren --- Darren Krakowski Sr. Software Engineer, Hamilton Sundstrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From:Darren Krakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:56:25 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a Yes, IEEE 1394a is backwards compliant with IEEE 1394-1995, which is the original 1394 specification devices up to this point have been designed to. The primary difference between the two is that 1394a provides greater bus speeds and cable length, although a 1394a compliant computer will not be able to take advantage of this with a 1394-1995 compliant peripheral. (Both devices would have to be 1394a compliant in order to take advantage of speed/cable length increases.) Otherwise the two are fully compatible. Regards, Darren -Original Message- From:tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:12:21 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a Hi, I am going to purchase a notebook and I found in specification that it is equipped with 1394a, is it compatible with usual 1394 (e.g. used in D1 or new LS 4000ED) ? Regards Tomasz ___ Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications center. Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Relative to a monitor, 0,0,255 in itself is not a specific color, real or not. It depends on what the phosphors do when you feed it those values, and will be different depending on the monitor and how it is calibrated (or not). And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, because I can SEE it. It's a bright blue. So I don't know what you mean in saying it is not a real color. It certainly does represent a real color on any particular monitor, just a DIFFERENT color. Do you mean it never gets translated to a real color in a color space or what? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners > > > Tony writes ... > > > > A gamut comprises a subset of colours out of infinite variety. There > are colours > > outside it which are simply unavailable and cannot appear in any > image which uses it. > > ... > > Just to add ... the color gamut which is described by R,G & B > pixel values, whether it be wide gamut or 16bits/channel, is a manmade > concoction of color definitions. There are a number of colors > described by RGB which aren't even real ... for example 0,0,255. > Nothing conceptualizes the definition of "gamut" better than "some > colors described by RGB are outside reality's gamut". > > shAf :o) >
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
Roman, I am reading this and laughing; but not at you. I am laughing because for the life of me I cannot figure out what we are really arguing about in that we are in agreement on most of the points. I agree that currently digital photography at its present stage of development leaves much to be desired especially the low and medium ends) and that it is in most cases inferior at present to AgX systems. I am not a fortune teller so I do not know if it will remain this way in the near, intermediate or long range future. Obviously much of this will depend on economics as well as technical engineering. I also have agreed with you in our earlier posts and agree with you now that it is not out of necessity for technical reasons that a dedicated exclusive scanning film has not been developed and marketed but mainly for practical economic reasons. While this tends to be the case historically that things will not be produced and marketed if the market is to small and specialized to make it profitable as a mass production item, it has not always in every case been such. Your infrared example illustrates that specialty films are produced and marketed even if their is a relatively small market as long as that market is found to be willing to pay the premium price or the company is trying to get a leg up on the competition in PR terms. With all due respect, I am not protesting the situation or the actions of the manufacturers at all; nor am I blaming you for anything substantive. What I am taking you to task for are three things. First, I am taking you to task for responding as if I were engaging in making demands for a dedicated scanner film and in protesting the lack of such a film, which I am not nor have I. Second, I am taking you to task for portraying and reacting to my posts as if I were blaming you for anything - especially for the fact that a dedicated scanner film is not being actually produced and distributed now. And thirdly, I am taking you to task for what I often see as an unwillingness on your part to assume and understand the viewpoint of those who are seeking the production and distribution of a dedicated scanner film for use in the immediate to near future when responding to them. Namely, rather than discussing the feasibility from a technical perspective of producing a dedicated scanner film ( you have pointed out the viability of doing so from an economic perspective) you seem to want to beg the question by telling them that they need to get the scanner manufacturers to produce scanners that comply with the requirements of the existing film. I would respectfully submit that this is less than a satisfactory answer to their complaints, demands, or questions. As noted above, it seems to be agreed that it is not technically impossible to develop such a film; but if it were impossible to do so , this would be a satisfactory response. The economic response does say why it is not done even if it is currently possible technically to do so. Thus it is a satisfactory response to some of the points that the scanner people raise. While developing better work-arounds is a legitimate partial response, it also begs the fundamental questions being asked; but shifting the onus totally onto the software developers and scanner manufactures is not really acceptable as a adequate or legitimate response to otherwise legitimate questions. If you are saying that the reasonable answer or response to the scanner people's points is that both the film manufactures and the scanner manufactures and the software developers need to all get together and develop their products so that they are not only compatible but capable of producing high quality easily accomplishable results in a profitable way, this would be a response that I think would be satisfactory and legitimate as well as one that does not beg the fundamental questions. However, returning to the beginning, I still think that we are not fundamentally in disagreement on the points that you have made as much as in your approach to the questions. Having said this, I think that we probably have pushed this bear as far as it will go and probably should either drop the topic or take it off list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich® Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask Laurie, digital photography in its current implementation is inferior to AgX systems. And will be much longer. I have nothing against a special film tuned to scanners. However, the world is dollar/yen/pound/mark driven. Unless they can make enough profit, they will not introduce it. Technically it is possible right now, but there is no sufficient number of customers, ie. profit. You can protest to United nations or the Pope with as much result. Don't blame me for that, I am just an observer. At 00:27 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Roman, >I do not see this as
Re: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling?
ALLM Rose wrote: > > I would really appreciate some help. I am trying to profile my Epson > 2000P printer using Monaco EZcolor 1.6. To do this I must print a > (Monaco-supplied) profiling image on the 2000P, tape a > (Monaco-supplied) target just below the printed image, and scan the > whole business on a flatbed scanner, which, in my case, is an Epson > 1240U using the Epson Twain 5 driver. There is a *strict* requirement > to turn off all color management options in the Epson Twain 5 driver. > Therein lies my problem: how do I turn off color management in the > Epson driver? Specifically, my confusion, in all its gory details, > is: > Turn off color adjustment in the Printer Driver not the Scanner driver.
RE: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In which order?
Jerry writes ... > ... > What I have done however, until recently, is make a lot of > high-bit scans of color negative film, let vuescan > code them in ProPhotoRGB, do my color > adjustments and convert to 8-bit files for archiving. My > priorities were: 1 archiving, 2 monitor viewing, > 3 web use, 4 printing. > I think now the approach taken was wrong for my priorities. > * I should either have converted to a smaller gamut > space just before converting to 8-bit, or Converting the profile ^before^ 8bit RGB will avoid some artifacts of the profile-to-profile conversion process. > * should never have edited in ProPhotoRGB but in a > smaller gamut color space or Bruce does provide an example for editting 1st in ProPhotoRGB before converting to 8bit. There is every advantage for editting with highbits in either wide or narrow gamuts ... > * should have archived the 16-bit files instead (I am > reluctant to do this, I have a little crowded home) > ... Understandable ... but understand you can't go backwards from 8bit to highbit, nor narrow gamut to wide. Therefore, for the purpose of "archiving" all your image information, you should reconsider archiving your scans in highbit. You never know when you'll want to retrieve the original scan and do a sever adjustment to it. Note that Photoshop 6 makes it very easy to work with an "archived" wide gamut image while also working with a "working" narrower gamut image. Both images will be displayed in their own color space ... and if your monitor calibration is right on, you'll not be able to "see" any difference between the two. You can be confident you can be working with ^all^ your image information. shAf :o)
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
> Rafe thanks - I do this sort of thing regularly (shows I am not good at > taking flat, well-lit shots!). The problem I was discussing arises when > you get blooming from one scanner exposure to another - then it becomes > difficult if not impossible to combine them satisfactorily using these > techniques. The difficulty is that the blooming extends over a small > "dark" area of the hi-exposure scan that is therefore not covered > satisfactorily by that scan, but it is also not covered satisfactorily by > the low- exposure scan (still too dark). You get horrible edges, whether > you use the manual masking that you describe, or a kind of semi-automatic > masking such as using one of the image exposures (inverted) as the mask. > (the last technique was described here some time ago, but I have found > doing it manually to be better in general). > > It is only a problem where your image has very high contrast at an edge, > not when you get more gradual changes. It is possible that if I were more > > careful I might be able to do it better, so that I was using the low > exposure pass for the edges of the "dark side", which you probably would > not notice. This I gather is what Dean is doing in his software - > which I think would make a great photoshop plug-in. > > Dean 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. > > >Afraid this won't be of any use to you - the combining of multiple > exposure > >levels was done in a custom application written in C++ running under > Unix. > >It was just one small part of a much larger program that I helped write. > > > Let me describe some of what the software did and how it might relate to combining images taken with different exposure levels. The software was using multiple exposure levels to obtain information from scenes containing extremely high dynamic ranges. In order to capture the entire range, we would take 3 or 4 sets of images, each with 4 times the exposure of the previous set. The limitation was haze from the bright reflections swamping out the dark regions and blooming causing entire regions of the CCD to be unusable. In order to eliminate this, we would physically block the light from the very brightest regions while taking the longer exposure images. Our base image would be the darkest image - the brightest spot would be just below saturation on the camera. We would then take the next brightest image and create a mask for all pixels above some threshold level (below saturation). Because the blooming causes light to spill over from the blooming pixel to the adjacent pixels, we would perform a dilation operation (Photoshop grow region?) on the mask. Typically we would increase the size of the mask by two pixels in all directions. This mask would then be used to combine the information from the two images. Repeat for each additional exposure level. We were not after the image itself, but rather other information within the set of images. I expect that the hardest part for obtaining a good image would be matching the intensity levels from one image to the next. You wanted to increase the exposure time by exactly two stops but the shutter was may be off by 10-20% If I were writing a program or plugin to do the combining, I would define some overlap region where I expect pixels from both images to be reasonably good and to perform a regression on these pixels to match levels from the two images. > > Dean Shough > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
> > Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. > > I think all current generation CCD's try to do this, but there's still a > point at > which charge leaks between pixels. > > This may be true for linear CCDs, but it is definitely not standard for scientific CCDs. When I last looked about 3 years ago, NO scientific CCDs were available with anti-blooming. > > Dean Shough > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
I stand corrected again, thanks for the additional correction. I am beginning to feel like a servo mechanism which bounces from one correction to the next. But I guess I am learning new things from it. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich® Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask At 11:56 16/01/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Ok, Thanks for the corrective clarification. Given this, I would concur >that my earlier speculation on how it might be possible to cross-process E-6 >to obtain a negative without the color mask would not work. There are >obvious differences between E-6 and C-41 processing apart from merely the >reversal stage which would prevent cross-processing of E-6 using the >traditional black and white processing that one can use to process C-41 film >and get a black and white negative out of it. Laurie, it is possible to cross e6 in c41. you gain approx. 2 stops in speed, but you lose color rendition, you gain a hell of contrast. otherwise, just standard c41 (time/temp/agitation). you can process e6 film in BW chemistry (developer, fixer), but you gain nothing. The only application - if you find 30 years old color film that was neglected at the bottom of a family cupboard. Color processing won't work, but you can salvage the images by processing as BW. Don't expect terrible quality, though.
Re: filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a
Yes, IEEE 1394a is backwards compliant with IEEE 1394-1995, which is the original 1394 specification devices up to this point have been designed to. The primary difference between the two is that 1394a provides greater bus speeds and cable length, although a 1394a compliant computer will not be able to take advantage of this with a 1394-1995 compliant peripheral. (Both devices would have to be 1394a compliant in order to take advantage of speed/cable length increases.) Otherwise the two are fully compatible. Regards, Darren --- Darren Krakowski Sr. Software Engineer, Hamilton Sundstrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From:tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:12:21 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a Hi, I am going to purchase a notebook and I found in specification that it is equipped with 1394a, is it compatible with usual 1394 (e.g. used in D1 or new LS 4000ED) ? Regards Tomasz __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ___ Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications center. Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
Re: filmscanners: What is a photomultiplier tube
At 22:34 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote: >"Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One Nikon LS30 buys at least 2 Nikon cameras. > >I think you mean one LS2000 buys 2 Nikon cameras, >unless Nikon SLRs just got a lot cheaper than last I checked. ;) > >Rob LS30 was AUD1640, you can have Nikon camera from 600. Unless you love FM2, which is double that. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In which order?
I have a question as result of the 'Color Profiles for Scanners' thread. >From that thread I got the feeling that it isn't the best approach to have a low (8-bit) image file with a large gamut space. You use a small part of the possible 256^3 values in which a pixel can be RGB-coded, which is either visible as a narrow histogram or considerable combing . Articles from Bruce Fraser also seemed to suggest that. What I have done however, until recently, is make a lot of high-bit scans of color negative film, let vuescan code them in ProPhotoRGB, do my color adjustments and convert to 8-bit files for archiving. My priorities were: 1 archiving, 2 monitor viewing, 3 web use, 4 printing. I think now the approach taken was wrong for my priorities. * I should either have converted to a smaller gamut space just before converting to 8-bit, or * should never have edited in ProPhotoRGB but in a smaller gamut color space or * should have archived the 16-bit files instead (I am reluctant to do this, I have a little crowded home) Does anyone care to say something about the pros and cons of the three approaches? Thank you in advance, even for reading this far, Jerry Oostrom
filmscanners: Supra? Old or New?
At 12:26 AM 1/17/01 -0600, you wrote: >While you may very well be right about the only difference being in the >addition of new film emulsion hardeners to prevent scratching, Kodak claims >to have done more than this to the film so as to make it more appropriate >for scanning. I believe I've also heard that Supra-100 is mostly a minor rework of one of their older films -- Ektar, maybe? The faster Supra films are supposedly new formulations. In any case, I stick with ISO 100 mostly for my landscape photography, and wasn't that interested in "faster" -- just better. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling?
If you are using QP to print your images than I suggest you read: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=739167 Do you not have a "No Color Correction" setting in the 2000P driver? Print the Target via QP and not EZcolor. Dale - Original Message - From: Howard Griffin To: Filmscanners Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:54 PM Subject: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling? I would really appreciate some help. I am trying to profile my Epson 2000P printer using Monaco EZcolor 1.6. To do this I must print a (Monaco-supplied) profiling image on the 2000P, tape a (Monaco-supplied) target just below the printed image, and scan the whole business on a flatbed scanner, which, in my case, is an Epson 1240U using the Epson Twain 5 driver. There is a *strict* requirement to turn off all color management options in the Epson Twain 5 driver. Therein lies my problem: how do I turn off color management in the Epson driver? Specifically, my confusion, in all its gory details, is:
Re: filmscanners: scanner lenses
one lens or two? At 01:21 17/01/2001 +0200, you wrote: >Been reading dissection of the new Nikon's 4000/8000 press claims with >interest... but can I ask about its optics? >I noticed that its lens is 14 elements in the 8000, which seems an awful lot >of glass... now maybe this is great and wonderful, or maybe this is because >it does every format from APS to MF? does it have to zoom or anything like >that? >If this is the case then surely a dedicated MF scanner would be better than >one that tries to do it all? I know if someone tried to sell me a >photographic enlarging lens that zoomed from sub 35mm to 6x9cm I wouldn't >consider it for a minute, as zooms are always way inferior to primes. >+ anyone know what the new Polaroid SS 120 lens is like? > >PG "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: orange mask/Low contrast tranny
Tony, Despite protestations from others on the list concerning only processing at industry standards it is easy to reduce contrast on tranny film. You do need to experiment but basically you need to overexpose and underdevelop. For a long time we used this technique to make duplicate transparencies until we were able to purchase duplicating film for the job. We used Ektachrome tungsten,overexposed by 2 stops and reduced the fist dev time from 7 minutes to 5 minutes. To stop anyone shouting what about the cross curves we used a different filter pack to compensate. this is a simple technique which works exceedingly well but you must experiment. All this talk of a film for scanning gives rise to the thought that the manufacturers are probably looking at the rapid progress of digital cameras and saying why bother ! I use a scan back on my Studio camera and the resulting digital files are far superior to those produced on our drum scanner from any make of film ! Smooth grain free images with zero noise in the shadow areas and perfect colour balance at the capture stage with the very minimum of rectification work needed in Photoshop. Film still has portability on its side along with easy storage and long life , but that WILL change . 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 - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:21 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask : On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:09:27 -0600 Henry Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : : > 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? : : Must admit, I've often wondered why nobody makes a low contrast tranny film, capable : of more of the brightness range on sunny days. I suspect because they are designed to : recreate original scene brightness ratios when projected, and a low-contrast film : might capture more range but would look impossibly flat and dull. : : Regards : : Tony Sleep : http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & : comparisons
Re: filmscanners: orange mask & E6
At 21:38 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote: >Roger wrote: >[snip] > > So, unfortunately, you won't have a negative colour image > > after the second (Colour) developer. > >Doesn't this stuff relate to cross-processing somehow? Or is it only >possible to cross process from a neg film to E6 not the other way around? > >Rob Rob, you can do both. But c41 processed in e6 will still have an orange mask. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling?
Use Vuescan and do a raw scan. It worked great with my Epson 610 USB scanner and WiziWYG. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard Griffin Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:54 To: Filmscanners Mailing List Subject: filmscanners: How to set Epson driver to NO color correction for profiling? I would really appreciate some help. I am trying to profile my Epson 2000P printer using Monaco EZcolor 1.6. To do this I must print a (Monaco-supplied) profiling image on the 2000P, tape a (Monaco-supplied) target just below the printed image, and scan the whole business on a flatbed scanner, which, in my case, is an Epson 1240U using the Epson Twain 5 driver. There is a *strict* requirement to turn off all color management options in the Epson Twain 5 driver. Therein lies my problem: how do I turn off color management in the Epson driver? Specifically, my confusion, in all its gory details, is:
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
Laurie, digital photography in its current implementation is inferior to
AgX systems. And will be much longer. I have nothing against a special film
tuned to scanners. However, the world is dollar/yen/pound/mark driven.
Unless they can make enough profit, they will not introduce it. Technically
it is possible right now, but there is no sufficient number of customers,
ie. profit. You can protest to United nations or the Pope with as much
result. Don't blame me for that, I am just an observer.
At 00:27 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Roman,
>I do not see this as an appropriate answer; actually I think it begs the
>question, except if one assumes that priority is to be given to the
>traditional methods of printing as you seem to want to do. I do not
>criticize you for assigning priority as you have (it is legitimate).
>However, others on this list and elsewhere (I am not necessarily among them)
>think that the priorities are or should be changing with the priority being
>placed on developing a film dedicated to scanning and not traditional
>printing methods. This places the emphasis on changing the film emulsions
>and properties to fit the demands of scanners and CCD sensors rather than
>photographic paper emulsions and color filter packs. Thus they are calling
>for such things as the elimination of orange masks and the like.
>
>That, practically speaking, this will not happen in the sense of film
>manufacturers introducing films dedicated exclusively to scanning in the
>immediate future is something that a previous post indicates we agree on.
>We also agree on the reasons why this will not happen soon given the nature
>of the existing market make-up. However, this is not to deny that those who
>are into scanning of films rather than projection printing of films have a
>legitimate right to desire and want films that are more suited and even
>dedicated to scanning as well as to complain about the fact that this is not
>happening.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich®
>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:00 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask
>
>
>At 08:14 15/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >What you say is true, however, in terms of digital scanning, what matters
> >is not how color photographic paper emulsion responds to the masking, but
> >how the masking might alter the translation of the scan with a digital
> >scanner using an CCD and software. The scanner might respond quite
> >differently from paper emulsions.
> >
> >Art
>
>change scanner :-{)
>
>
>"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
>in Australia".
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
has anyone scanned Kodak Ektar 25? (it's an old film, at least no longer on offer)? It had extremely small grain and very short exposure latitude, sharp bends down and up (shadows/highlights). I managed to enlarge 135 frame to 50 by 40 cm with no visible grain and very good tonal rendition of skin tones and hairs. At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:14:59 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > The scanner might > > respond quite differently from paper emulsions. > >CCD's are a lot more linear in their response than photographic emulsions >used on >paper. There is a mismatch here: film has a more or less S-shaped >densitometric curve >which matches with the curve of paper, the two are engineered to more or >less complement each other. Classically, film exhibits a straight-line >response only >through the midtones, whilst shadow response is extended and compressed >and highlights >ditto. Unfortunately, scanners have poor discrimination at the shadow end >of their >response due to CCD noise and sampling precision is also worst here. The >compression >exhibited by the film (low ODR) can result in weak and noisy shadows, and >posterisation. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:19:49 +1100 Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?= >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > does anyone know, which feature of Kodak Supra makes it scanner friendly? > > >The marketing dept's engineering of the box it comes in? Don't forget, >this is the >same company who TV-advertises 'film specially made for zoom cameras'. > it was my feeling too. that's why I asked.
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:09:27 -0600 Henry Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > > > 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? > >Must admit, I've often wondered why nobody makes a low contrast tranny >film, capable >of more of the brightness range on sunny days. I suspect because they are >designed to >recreate original scene brightness ratios when projected, and a >low-contrast film >might capture more range but would look impossibly flat and dull. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons Tony, duplicating films have lower contrast (around 1), but the speed is low too. They are designed for an artificial light, and usually require some filtration. Old Agfachrome 50S could be processed in a modified first developer to mimic a duplicating film (low gamma), but they are gone. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:14:09 + Richard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > I've heard Fuji ProviaF was specifically designed for scanning. > >It certainly wasn't designed for photography. At least not in the UK >between November >and May. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons ?? speed? When I started photography, 15-18 DIN (25-50 ASA) films were standard, and DIN 27/ASA 400 were terribly high speed! BTW, it was in continental Europe (same problem with seasons and light). "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 08:35 16/01/2001 -0700, you wrote: Mike, going back to your question regarding cross processing. The only useful case I had, was when we needed to copy architect's drawing. Plain color neg was too soft, while e6 film in c41 gave us good contrast. colors were distinctly different (particularly greens and browns), but it was good enough.
RE: filmscanners: orange mask
At 11:56 16/01/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Ok, Thanks for the corrective clarification. Given this, I would concur >that my earlier speculation on how it might be possible to cross-process E-6 >to obtain a negative without the color mask would not work. There are >obvious differences between E-6 and C-41 processing apart from merely the >reversal stage which would prevent cross-processing of E-6 using the >traditional black and white processing that one can use to process C-41 film >and get a black and white negative out of it. Laurie, it is possible to cross e6 in c41. you gain approx. 2 stops in speed, but you lose color rendition, you gain a hell of contrast. otherwise, just standard c41 (time/temp/agitation). you can process e6 film in BW chemistry (developer, fixer), but you gain nothing. The only application - if you find 30 years old color film that was neglected at the bottom of a family cupboard. Color processing won't work, but you can salvage the images by processing as BW. Don't expect terrible quality, though.
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
At 22:38 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote: >BTW speaking of supply and demand, I believe some of the latest minilabs >are actually scanning the film to print it onto photographic paper rather >than >using a more traditional optical printing method. That would seem to be a >ready-made boost to having films optimised for scanning. > >Rob true, Kodak and Fuji. But they are not very common. I must investigate the pricing. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Thank you Tony Sleep for answering the questions. Andrew Rodney also mailed a link to an article that itself links to another article which confirmed my suspicions. (Thank you too, Andrew) His link: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html The other linked article states IMP that a wider gamut color space will not give you more colors (number is always infinite and WRT image files always limited to bit depth): The size of the working space's gamut determines the spacing of the 256 possible values of each channel. In a large-gamut space, the values are spread farther apart than in a small-gamut space. Hence the trade-off: A wider gamut gives you a wider range of color, but it doesn't give you more colors. The same number of colors are simply stretched over a larger color range. (from http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/6541.html) Now I just have to see if I can also see the limitations of gamut, of which you say they are much more apparent than granularity differences between color spaces used in 24/48 bit files. I have already seen some sort of posterization occur in the sky with editing certain high-bit scans of negative film in ProPhotoRGB where the scene was a heavy backlit one, with a tower in front and a bride in the shadow of that tower. Of course this could very well be caused by other factors as e.g. limitations of my scanwit.
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
I couldn't find any info on Kodak web page. there is no info on the film design. yonks ago mf film had a matt backing to make retouching easier. I suspect, kodak may have done similar. let me know teh results of your experiment before February (I am heading to Coffs in two weeks). Roman , nothing usefuAt 22:40 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote: >"Roman Kielich®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > does anyone know, which feature of Kodak Supra makes it scanner friendly? > >I just bought 5 rolls and will try it out this week - so I don't know >the answer to your question for sure yet. I *believe* it's a different >grain structure which produces less aliasing. > >Rob "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
filmscanners: OT 1394 - 1394a
Hi, I am going to purchase a notebook and I found in specification that it is equipped with 1394a, is it compatible with usual 1394 (e.g. used in D1 or new LS 4000ED) ? Regards Tomasz __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection
Hi, I am just wondering which of the new scanners (IV or 4000) is a best buy (hobby purpose). Of course 4000 is superior but the specification of IV seems to be better than LS2000 which is a decent scanner. I am interested in your opinion what is a better solution ? - buying IV and keeping 1000USD for a new full frame digital body (assuming that it will be available at reasonable price 3000~4000USD? within 1-2 years) - buying 4000 and switch to digital body after 2.5~3 years I know that nobody knows the perfect answer, just I am curious about your opinions, advices Regards Tomasz __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Tony writes ... > > A gamut comprises a subset of colours out of infinite variety. There are colours > outside it which are simply unavailable and cannot appear in any image which uses it. > ... Just to add ... the color gamut which is described by R,G & B pixel values, whether it be wide gamut or 16bits/channel, is a manmade concoction of color definitions. There are a number of colors described by RGB which aren't even real ... for example 0,0,255. Nothing conceptualizes the definition of "gamut" better than "some colors described by RGB are outside reality's gamut". shAf :o)
