Re: filmscanners: Epson printer problems
Yes, and I will answer you in private mail about this common problem, to not further antagonize anyone here. Art Bill Grimwood wrote: Yesterday while printing with my Epson Photo EX the printer started printing black lines across the print into the margin on the paper. In about three years with this printer I have never encountered this problem before. Any suggestions? Bill Grimwood
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
At 16:59 26/02/2001 -0500, you wrote: You can get it at: ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe downloaded 40 minutes ago using wsftp, netscape wasn't helpful. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Austin Franklin wrote: "FTP Error: 550 Access denied - No such file or directory. Path /pub/adobe/magic/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe doesn't exist or you don't have permission to use this file." That's what happens when I try to access that file. The FTP directory listing does not show any file of that name in that directory, just some de/ft/jp language files that are 45M. Maybe Adobe is being particular about who they allow access? ;-) I find that some web browsers are not getting along with some web pages lately. I tried to register on line to Comdex (the computer trade show coming up here in March) They have been soliciting me via e-mail for weeks. On four occasions that I tried, after filling out the forms and silly surveys, it failed at the last page to confirm me. I emailed the Comdex organizers about this, and although they didn't respond directly, the next time they solicited me via email with a link, they mentioned "some people have indicated they are unable to complete the registration process" We are having problems with people using I.E. 5.0, please use V5.5. The odd thing is, I was trying to register using Netscape 6! I finally faxed in my registration yesterday, and mentioned that it was rather ironic that a industrial-strength computer trade show couldn't get their website to accept input from two common browsers, Netscape 6 and IE V5.0... the same thing happened last year, as I recall. A few years back, each guest was issued an embossed card with one's name, company affiliation, address, etc. The card had a magnetic strip on the back to encode all of this stuff. However, they couldn't get the readers in time, so all the exhibitors had to use those silly old style manual zip-zip credit card imprinters to get people's ID info so sending literature. I'm surprised they weren't using pneumatic tubes! Art
filmscanners: SS4000/ASPI Problem Solved
Thanks to the many Filmscanners who helped solve my problem(SS 4000 not recognized in Win 2K). Conclusion was. 1. Install new drivers for the AdvanSys ABP-3922-00 SCSI card from http://www.connectcom.net/downloads/fastultra.html. Connect.com is the new name for the AdvanSys site. This installed a driver called Fast Ultra Narrow SCSI, which then showed up properly in Device Manager. Win 2K itself had a driver for the AdvanSys card which loaded automatically on setup, but it was out-dated. 2. Install new NTASPI32 with the installer from http://advansys.com/support/ntwnaspi32.html. A trick here was that the Adaptec installer did not work(gave a message that there was no Adaptec card on my system). The Polaroid Support staff and some others advised me to use the Adaptec site, but that would never work for me. Also, the AdvanSys CD that originally came with my SS4000(December 1999) had outdated drivers. In this AdvanSys site, there was a choice of a GUI installer or a simple system where you just copy the NTASPI and WNASPI files to two different WIN NT folders. I used the GUI and it was all automatic. 3. Now I had the right drivers and ASPI layer, but the scanner was still not recognized. I had to physically remove the AdvanSys card and reboot with the card out of the system(no longer showed up in the Device Manager). Then I shut down, put the AdvanSys card back in, and started up again. Voila! Works pefectly so far with the SS4000 using either Vuescan or PolaColor Insight. I still have a problem with Win2K system freezes when using Windows Explorer, and my USRobotics modem is not working. But all applications like Photoshop 6 and ThumbsPlus are working better than they did on Win 98 or Me. Dual Boot with Win Me working fine. I'll solve the other problems, but I couldn't have solved the ASPI problem without your help. Thanks Bill Twieg
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Dale Gail wrote: You can get it at: ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/magic/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe This works. The problem is they're so busy it's hard to get through. After about 200 tries, I got through and it immediately started uploading the update file to me. I've installed it but have no idea what it does. Ray Amos
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
As I prepare for scanning for these size prints, it will help me, and I suspect others, if some of you scanning for quality 8.5 x 11 and 13 x 17 prints from 35mm in either b w or color will comment on: I do not vary my scan for output size. I always scan at the optical resolution of the scanner. I always use TIFF files. I adjust my image for output using Photoshop Image/Image Size tab. I uncheck "Resample Image" so there is no manipulation of the data. I vary the height or width in "Document Size" to suit my required output size and let the resolution fall where it may. No matter what the "Resolution" number is (286.6) it is fine. As long as it is 240 or above, that is the best image quality you will get. If it is below 240, then you may consider unchecking "Resample Image" and resampling to get enough information to your printer so you do not get any appearance of digital artifacting.
RE: filmscanners: Epson printer problems
Thanks Bill At 09:11 AM 2/27/01 +1000, you wrote: Bill wrote: Yesterday while printing with my Epson Photo EX the printer started printing black lines across the print into the margin on the paper. In about three years with this printer I have never encountered this problem before. The head has ink on it where it shouldn't be. If it's going into the margins, it's not the actual jets which are causing the problem. Run a cleaning cycle from the utilities in the printer driver. The best place for Epson related problems is the Epson inkjet list; go to www.leben.com and subscribe from there. Barbara suggested using the "-" setting on the paper thickness lever. I would *not* advise using the "thin" paper setting for photo thickness paper. You could damage the printer transport, or at least increase wear on the head. The lever should be set to "+" for all photo paper thickness papers (generally those over 100gsm). Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
I got the SAME error msg yesterday, but not today..It went right in...BUT..I wish I knew exactly what I have..ie..what are the "updates?"...Eddie Wiseman - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:19 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01 Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115.
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115.
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Marvin writes ... I am confused as to the techniques that are used. I had the pleasure of viewing a CD of b w TIFF scans this past weekend, made by a professional photographer, who is at the level that he has had photographs published by National Geographic. He told me he had scanned the 35mm b w negatives at 2700 dpi. Using PS, I found that the file sizes were about 5MB, the print sizes were about 5 x 7 and the ppi were 385. Whereas I thought this photographer's prints would provide an example of the math, it doesn't work. 1st ... scanning at 2700ppi simply implies he scanned his film at the scanner's maximum, he later redefined it print size and resolution with Photoshop (as Austin suggested). 2nd ... the 385ppi setting you mention is probably specific to the printer he used. That is, after trails and tribulation, he came up with 385ppi being the best res to send to the printer, and defined it as such using PS's 'image size' dialog. (It is a rather high res, but who is going to argue with a photographer accepted by NG, and who know what printer he used???) However, the math does not agree with the filesize you mention!! (5" X 385ppi) X (7" X 385ppi) X 3 RGB channels is not equal to 5Mb!! ... more rather, ~15Mb (no wonder you are confused???) shAf :o)
Fw: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Here is the URL to which I connected to and received the Adobe 6 update TODAY...(THX to Roman)Eddie Wiseman - Original Message - From: "Roman Kielich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:21 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01 At 16:59 26/02/2001 -0500, you wrote: You can get it at: ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe downloaded 40 minutes ago using wsftp, netscape wasn't helpful. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Do you mean you installed the updater yesterday, then ran it again today? If you wouldn't mind giving me more info on exactly what you did, I'd appreciate it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Edward Wiseman Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01 I got the SAME error msg yesterday, but not today..It went right in...BUT..I wish I knew exactly what I have..ie..what are the "updates?"...Eddie Wiseman - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:19 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01 Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115.
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
I downloaded the Photoshop 6.01 updater yesterday. No problems. It's a self expanding archive. Once expanded, it includes a readme file that explains what the fixes are. You can read that before you install the update. Then you run the setup.exe to install. It all worked fine. Guess I was lucky. Richard Wolfson [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Austin Franklin Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115. From: Edward Wiseman I wish I knew exactly what I have..ie..what are the "updates?"
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
I've installed it but have no idea what it does. Ray Amos Following is from a post on the Photoshop usenet news group: The most significant fixes in the 6.0.1 release include: - The painting tool brush picker has new usability improvements including: - Enter brings up and dismisses the preset picker at the current mouse location - Double-clicking a brush in the picker selects the brush and dismisses the picker - The current brush is always highlighted in the preset picker - The current brush indicator always displays the brush size - The First Brush and Last Brush keyboard shortcuts ( and ) work regardless of whether the current brush exactly matches a preset brush - Image clipping paths in EPS and TIFF files saved from Photoshop 6.0.1 have been modified so that software, such as QuarkXPress, is able to read them. - ImageReady is able to save and preview animations under constrained memory conditions. - There is no slow-down of performance when files in the Open Recent list are unavailable. - Batch file naming works correctly. - Export Paths to Illustrator retains path scaling. - Using certain tools, such as the Move, Marquee, or Lasso tool, after using the Open, Save and Print commands no longer generates a Program Error dialog. - Selecting a single color in Color Range now works correctly. - Online help is accessible for more web browser configurations. - New Japanese character map (CMap) files are included to resolve conflicts with ImageStyler 1.0 and PageMaker 6.5.2 Plus. - Memory usage behavior is better on all Windows OSes; the network should no longer become unavailable when Photoshop is running. - Showing and hiding edges for a selection no longer requires pressing Ctrl-H twice.
filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x17...
At 8:44 AM -0600 2/27/01, Marvin Demuth wrote:
As I prepare for scanning for these size prints, it will help me, and I
suspect others, if some of you scanning for quality 8.5 x 11 and 13 x 17
prints from 35mm in either b w or color will comment on:
1. The typical file sizes you use at the printing stage and the ppi of your
final scans.
2. The file format of the file at the printing stage.
3. How you archive your final scans used for the printing, i.e. CDs, etc.
4. The bpi and ppi confusion.
Hi Marvin,
You will probably get a number of different opinions on this,
and they may all be good.
1. In my case, I always scan at the optical resolution of the
scanner (2720 ppi with my Canon FS 2710). This gives a file of about
26.5 Mb (assuming you are using an 8-bit file).
For printing I resize to the size I want in Photoshop's Image
Size ("Resample Image" unclicked) and let the resolution fall where
it may. There have been many discussions on the "ideal" image file
resolution for Epson printers, but the consensus seems to be
somewhere between 240 ppi and 360 ppi. My tests showed that there was
some improvement in going up from 240 to 300 to 360, but that there
was no degradation of the print using odd resolutions such as 347 ppi
or 353.753 ppi. Some people have claimed that using odd values for
resolution affects the quality of their prints, but I haven't found
that to be the case.
As it happens, 360 ppi gives you about 10.3 x 7, which is the
maximum printable length on the Letter setting, and 240 ppi gives
about 10.5 x 15.5, a handy size for A3 or 11x17 paper.
2. I usually use .psd files for printing, but .tifs do as well.
3. I archive on CD-Rs. The consensus here seems to be to use
gold-dye CD-Rs for maximum file stability. Good formats again include
.psd or .tif, but TIFFSs can be read by more image programs than
Photoshop documents.
4. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean dpi? If so, dpi is
a convention used by printers, but it is less meaningful with
printers such as Epsons, which use a random dithering pattern to lay
down ink drops. The common values of 720x720dpi or 1440 x720 dpi used
by Epson don't mean much, except that 1440 usually gives a smoother
output with less horizontal banding. It refers to a smaller
incremental movement of the paper as it goes through the printer, not
that the printer is putting out more dots of ink per inch.
Ppi is strictly a digital notation that describes the number
of pixels making up an image. For example, a raw scan from a Canon
FS2710 is 2720 ppi, but if you printed the image, it would only be
about 1x1.5 inches, the size of a 35mm frame. That makes the number
of pixels about 2600 by 3700, or about 26.5 Mb (depending on how
close to the edge it is cropped). Thsi information shows up in the
Image Size box. As noted above, this image can be resized at will -
lowering the resolution automatically increases the size it will
print. This makes no difference to how it looks on your monitor -
Photoshop for example always shows a % number at the top of the
screen. This relates to how image pixels relate to screen pixels.
This gets complicated by what resolution your monitor screen is set
to, so I'll leave it at that. For the most accurate view of your
image, use100%, as this gives one screen pixel for each image pixel.
You will find your images look better at the even divisions of 100%
(12.5%, 25%, 50%) than at the odd numbers like 33.3% and 66.7%.
I hope this isn't too confusing. I see other answers are
starting to appear, so I'll leave it here.
Regards,
Roger Smith
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Me too... everything went fine till then, then it gave me the error and aborted the install.. My PS says 6.01 though... Mike M. Austin Franklin wrote: Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115.
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
shAf previously wrote ... Marvin writes ... ..., I found that the file sizes were about 5MB, the print sizes were about 5 x 7 and the ppi were 385. Whereas I thought this photographer's prints would provide an example of the math, it doesn't work. 1st ... 2nd ... However, the math does not agree with the filesize you mention!! (5" X 385ppi) X (7" X 385ppi) X 3 RGB channels is not equal to 5Mb!! ... more rather, ~15Mb ... Ooops!!! ... you did mention this image may have been B/W, for which there would be only one channel ... therefore ~5Mb is about right. IHIDNC (I hope I did not confuse) ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Michael writes ... Me too... everything went fine till then, then it gave me the error and aborted the install.. My PS says 6.01 though... Mike M. Austin Franklin wrote: Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115. My 6.01 install went well on two computers. However. I will be downloading the "official" (read: Adobe announced) version when it becomes available to make sure both files provide the same checksum. I might also make note of the installation warning which advised closing all programs, including anti-virus. And, the best place to resolve this 6.01 problem would be the platform specific Adobe Photoshop forum at the Adobe wwwsite (follow links to "support, then forums". shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
shAf wrote: ... However, the math does not agree with the filesize you mention!! (5" X 385ppi) X (7" X 385ppi) X 3 RGB channels is not equal to 5Mb!! ... more rather, ~15Mb (no wonder you are confused???) shAf :o) I checked a specific file and came up with this data: 2794 x 1884 pixels; 7.257 x 4.884 inches (print size); 5,146 KB; 385 ppi (PhotoShop) It is interesting that VuePrint Pro_32 refers to 385 dpi rather than ppi. In scanning and printing terminology can we use the terms dpi and ppi interchangeably? Marvin Demuth
Re: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Roger,
If your OS is Win95/98/Me/2000 I suggest you try a program called Qimage
Pro. You don't have to resample for printing as the program does it for you.
The print results are far superior than PS or PSP. The program is very
inexpensive and the support is very good.
You can get a trial version at:
http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/imaging/index.html
Dale
1. In my case, I always scan at the optical resolution of the
scanner (2720 ppi with my Canon FS 2710). This gives a file of about
26.5 Mb (assuming you are using an 8-bit file).
For printing I resize to the size I want in Photoshop's Image
Size ("Resample Image" unclicked) and let the resolution fall where
it may. There have been many discussions on the "ideal" image file
resolution for Epson printers, but the consensus seems to be
somewhere between 240 ppi and 360 ppi. My tests showed that there was
some improvement in going up from 240 to 300 to 360, but that there
was no degradation of the print using odd resolutions such as 347 ppi
or 353.753 ppi. Some people have claimed that using odd values for
resolution affects the quality of their prints, but I haven't found
that to be the case.
RE: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
If your OS is Win95/98/Me/2000 I suggest you try a program called Qimage Pro. You don't have to resample for printing as the program does it for you. The print results are far superior than PS or PSP. The program is very inexpensive and the support is very good. What, exactly, do you mean by "The print results are far superior"? What is the workflow you are claiming this is true for? If you are claiming this is true when your resultant resolution falls below, say, 240...and you need to resample I could believe it is better than the PS resampling algorithms...but I'm not quite clear what claim you are making here...
Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Essentially yes. Read up on it all at http://www.scantips.com/ Maris - Original Message - From: "Marvin Demuth" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:44 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17... | shAf wrote: | ... | | However, the math does not agree with the filesize you mention!! | | (5" X 385ppi) X (7" X 385ppi) X 3 RGB channels is not equal to 5Mb!! | ... more rather, ~15Mb (no wonder you are confused???) | | shAf :o) | I checked a specific file and came up with this data: | 2794 x 1884 pixels; 7.257 x 4.884 inches (print size); 5,146 KB; 385 ppi | (PhotoShop) | It is interesting that VuePrint Pro_32 refers to 385 dpi rather than ppi. | In scanning and printing terminology can we use the terms dpi and ppi | interchangeably? | Marvin Demuth | |
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Marvin writes ... It is interesting that VuePrint Pro_32 refers to 385 dpi rather than ppi. In scanning and printing terminology can we use the terms dpi and ppi interchangeably? It is common to see both terms of resolution used as if they are interchangeable, but if you consider (for example) Epson printers which have a inkjet resolution of 720DPI, but should be sent an image file of 240PPI, you can see where the context of the terminology is important. Modern use of the term, are "DPI" for dithering printers, and "PPI" for RGB scanners, Photoshop images, non-dithering printers (e.g., dye-sublimation). shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
It is common to see both terms of resolution used as if they are interchangeable, but if you consider (for example) Epson printers which have a inkjet resolution of 720DPI, but should be sent an image file of 240PPI, you can see where the context of the terminology is important. Modern use of the term, are "DPI" for dithering printers, and "PPI" for RGB scanners, Photoshop images, non-dithering printers Why do you believe dithering has anything to do with the distinction of ppi vs dpi? Impact printers were spec'd in dpi, as well as my laser printers Obviolsly, as you point out, there is a difference in pixels and dots ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
From my experience I find the prints are far superior than what PS produces. You have full color management (ICC) support. The algorithms used in QP are better than the resampling in PS. In PS or PSP you have to manually resample prior to printing. In QP when setup the don't have to resample , if required it is done by QP. You have a choice of 7 different types of interpolation to choose from. The default is Lanczos, and if you take the time to try the program you will find it to be better than the algorithm used in PS. For $30.00 you might say it can't be much of a program at that price, it is well worth much more. Many Pro Photographers who used PS for printing now use QP. There are close to 900 people on the e-list and many are Pro Photographers. Since getting QP I very seldom use PS and never use it for printing. Dale What, exactly, do you mean by "The print results are far superior"? What is the workflow you are claiming this is true for? If you are claiming this is true when your resultant resolution falls below, say, 240...and you need to resample I could believe it is better than the PS resampling algorithms...but I'm not quite clear what claim you are making here...
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Austin writes ... Why do you believe dithering has anything to do with the distinction of ppi vs dpi? Impact printers were spec'd in dpi, as well as my laser printers Impact printers, laser printers, ink jet printers ... any printer which needs to dither some sort of CYMk pattern for creating "apparent" colors have a DPI resolution specification which should be considered separate from the RGB resolution you ask them to print (PPI). Usually this RGB resolution is referred to as lines-per-inch (LPI), and takes into account the size of the pattern. The optimum LPI should be mentioned in the printer's users manual, but all too often is left up to the user to determine. For example, many believe 240LPI is optimum for 720DPI Epson printers, and you'd teherefore ask the printer to print 240PPI. Only dye-sub printers, including the Fujix, mix CMY rather than dither, and can print at PPI equal to their DPI spec, and have no LPI. shAf :o)
filmscanners: Nikon 4000ED
Visited the UK FOI 2001 at the NEC Birmingham yesterday and had a shufty at the above scanner in demo mode. A single and 16x sampling image showed a distinct contrast change with the single sample being the better gradation. However it has to be said that no noise was visible at 300% on the 16 sample. Saw ICE in action and one must admit it was impressive when used with the demonstrators chosen originals, however why is it that these shows never seem able to scan a first class original and output to large size paper print. Lets see optimum quality, that's what I say. I also noted that the software company responsible for the scanners front end were advertising as a separate organisation which might suggest ICE will become available for use by other devices, otherwise why go to the expense of producing printed matter, that's what I ask. While I was at it I had a look at the printer paper product being sold by one Perma Jet. Some pretty hefty substance numbers were on offer like 250gsm stock that felt like hand made paper, which of course it could not be. Has anyone used this product in anger on an Epson 870? Another organisation that took my eye, and some of my money to boot, was Lyson inks. I musy admit o being impressed with their 6 colour BW option and an additional BW tinting ink set. In fact I was so impressed that I forked out 5 pounds sterling for their video tutorial on "Lyson Archival Colour and Monochrome Inksets and Media" - something of a gobful "title wise" - as our American cousins may well have said - but nevertheless a very useful little number covering a variety of topics from installing the Lyson Ink Set to calibration matching between monitor and printer. worth five biggies from anyone's wallet that is. Quite a good show really and well up to speed on the technology front with Epson demoing their professional inkjet printers and using a RIP of all things. No doubt making an attempt to get into the real print market proofing technology. On the side, and while watching a friendly pro tell us all how easy it would be to take studio flash into the great outdoors - always providing one purchased his wonder remote power unit - I noted his Bronica fitted with a one shot digital back bunging them into a Mac and up on the old Photoshop screen in double quick time, and in very fine fettle, quality wise too. Where will it all end, I ask myselfwhat's it all about Alfie I does worble in fine baritone mode. No doubt the old soothsayers will paint a picture or two on this one, but will it have digital quality that's what I want to know. Richard Corbett
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Impact printers, laser printers, ink jet printers ... any printer which needs to dither some sort of CYMk pattern for creating "apparent" colors have a DPI resolution specification which should be considered separate from the RGB resolution you ask them to print (PPI). I understand your distinction, thanks. It's probably a very important distinction to understand, I guess I have always taken for granted. Now, another question...why do you call it 'dither' instead of halftone? Dither is different than halftone. Here are the definitions I have for each of those: "Dithering is a process in which an application chooses two or more colors from a palette, and then applies them to adjacent pixels to approximate colors outside of the palette." "Halftoning is the process of breaking down a continuous tone image into solid spots of differing sizes to create the illusion of transitioning grays or colors in a printed image." For example, many believe 240LPI is optimum for 720DPI Epson printers, and you'd teherefore ask the printer to print 240PPI. Possibly 'mis' believe, but that's another topic ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray (was Scan Dual II on Mac
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:00:59 -0700 Berry Ives ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I did do the individual RGB adjustments to the best of my abilities. But in between my writing that response and mailing it, Ed seems to have expanded Vuescan to work with your scanner and OS. Try it, see if it helps. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Austin writes ... Now, another question...why do you call it 'dither' instead of halftone? ... I consider "dither" as the general term, which includes "halftone". "Halftone" would seem best applied to traditional methods, and not include some of the newer techniques ... e.g., "random" or "stoichastic" dithering ... but that may be just me :o) Well, I asked because someone wanted to 'discuss' with me that halftone is not the proper term, that dither was. I've been in digital imaging for over 20 years, and I believe halftone is still appropriate to call the overall process...and dither is but one method employed in halftoning...so I think you have it reversed...and apparently Adobe agrees with me if you check their technical articles on PhotoShop on halftoning...so I was curious why you, also, called it that instead of halftoning. Not saying you're wrong, but my understanding is different. Check the Adobe site and let me know what you thing... If you want the URLs, I can dig them up. Regards, Austin
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray
on 2/27/01 5:50 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/26/01 9:47 PM, Doug Herr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: At 06:17 PM 26/02/01 -0800, you wrote: I did do the individual RGB adjustments to the best of my abilities. It was fun seeing what could be done, but my result was still imperfect. Does the darkroom still rule? Or will I eventually learn to beat this problem? -Berry Experience will beat this problem and the darkroom most certainly does not rule. Doug Herr Is this really true? Note that I am not arguing with the point - I love my digital darkroom, and have no problems with most images, but I know I have a long way to go to really understand colour balancing, because it bites me every now and then.. Mark T. I can't claim to be an expert but I'm finding less reason to use color-correcting filters. An example of what can be done is at: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/technique/bluepika.html Doug Herr Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com I looked at your images, Doug, and the background grays, some just like the ones I had trouble with--beyond the depth of field and fading into the sky-- are certainly nice and clean. Very nice. Can you make a few comments about your film, film format, scanner, and image processing technique (e.g., 16-bit or 8-bit to Photoshop? have you encountered the same problem I was referring to, etc.) Thanks, Berry Berry, At this time my own scanner is on my wish list. I'm on the list mostly to absorb as much info as I can before I shell out my own (vaporware) dollars for the scanner that's going to make me rich and famous. I've been using Kodak PhotoCD and I had a lot of trouble getting the colors I wanted until I figured out how to convert the files' color space to Adobe RGB (1998) from the color space the Kodak Acquire module demanded I use (Image-Mode-Profile to Profile). My film is entirely 35mm, mostly Kodachromes, some as far back as 1971 Kodachrome X (i.e., the example posted above). I work in a 24-bit RGB mode, 8 bits per channel. Color corrections involve establishing the white and black points, then tweaking each channel to get the midtones right. It may take several tries on each channel before I'm satisfied. BTW I use an adjustment layer to make the corrections, not altering the original pixel data. Often I even need the discerning eye and impeccable taste of my 12-year-old daughter to get the colors right. I've been told that for the ultimate in color control I ought to adjust with Curves but for now I'm getting by adjusting Levels. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento www.wildlightphoto.com
RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Bob Shomler wrote: Following is from a post on the Photoshop usenet news group: The most significant fixes in the 6.0.1 release include: - The painting tool brush picker has new usability improvements including: Snip - Memory usage behavior is better on all Windows OSes; the network should no longer become unavailable when Photoshop is running. - Showing and hiding edges for a selection no longer requires pressing Ctrl-H twice. FYI, this quotes the Readme file installed with the upgrade. Dave B.
RE: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
But it's only better if you are resampling? From my experience I find the prints are far superior than what PS produces. You have full color management (ICC) support. The algorithms used in QP are better than the resampling in PS. In PS or PSP you have to manually resample prior to printing. In QP when setup the don't have to resample , if required it is done by QP. You have a choice of 7 different types of interpolation to choose from. The default is Lanczos, and if you take the time to try the program you will find it to be better than the algorithm used in PS. For $30.00 you might say it can't be much of a program at that price, it is well worth much more. Many Pro Photographers who used PS for printing now use QP. There are close to 900 people on the e-list and many are Pro Photographers. Since getting QP I very seldom use PS and never use it for printing. Dale What, exactly, do you mean by "The print results are far superior"? What is the workflow you are claiming this is true for? If you are claiming this is true when your resultant resolution falls below, say, 240...and you need to resample I could believe it is better than the PS resampling algorithms...but I'm not quite clear what claim you are making here...
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Half-toning is a specific kind of dithering, namely cluster-dot ordered dithering. Another kind of dithering is a random dither, or stochastic dithering. So the general term is dithering, not half-toning. You can read about this in sec. 13.1.2 in Foley and van Dam's classic book, "Computer Graphics" Second Edition. I guess it doesn't matter what Adobe says about it. These are old terms that have been around a lot longer than Photoshop. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17... Austin writes ... Now, another question...why do you call it 'dither' instead of halftone? ... I consider "dither" as the general term, which includes "halftone". "Halftone" would seem best applied to traditional methods, and not include some of the newer techniques ... e.g., "random" or "stoichastic" dithering ... but that may be just me :o) Well, I asked because someone wanted to 'discuss' with me that halftone is not the proper term, that dither was. I've been in digital imaging for over 20 years, and I believe halftone is still appropriate to call the overall process...and dither is but one method employed in halftoning...so I think you have it reversed...and apparently Adobe agrees with me if you check their technical articles on PhotoShop on halftoning...so I was curious why you, also, called it that instead of halftoning. Not saying you're wrong, but my understanding is different. Check the Adobe site and let me know what you thing... If you want the URLs, I can dig them up. Regards, Austin
Re: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Austin writes ... I consider "dither" as the general term, which includes "halftone". "Halftone" would seem best applied to traditional methods, and not include some of the newer techniques ... e.g., "random" or "stoichastic" dithering ... but that may be just me :o) Well, I asked because someone wanted to 'discuss' with me that halftone is not the proper term, that dither was. I've been in digital imaging for over 20 years, and I believe halftone is still appropriate to call the overall process...and dither is but one method employed in halftoning...so I think you have it reversed... "Halftoning" really has nothing to do with digital imaging ... but it has adapted like many other imaging methods. Like you implied several posts ago "Halftoning is the process of breaking down a continuous tone image into solid spots of differing sizes to create the illusion of transitioning grays or colors in a printed image." It may be a matter of simplistic and archiac definition, but laser and inkjet printers, are not capable of halftoning in the traditional sense. For them to create a large dot, or large diamonds, rather than small, they must put smaller dots together to do the same thing ... whereas traditional halftoning was a high contrast photographic process, involving a continuous tone negative (the original), a defocussed screen and a high contrast film (the halftone copy) ... carried next to the screening process. In the context of Photoshop separations, and postscript printing ... yes, this can digitally reproduce "halftoning", and a modern method of the technique ... indeed, it is a very special art to apply larger/smaller shapes (diamonds, hearts, smiley faces, etc) to image formation. But in the context of consumer, and pro-sumer inkjet printing, halftoning is not the process used, rather a mixture of finer dots ... dots as fine as possible ... what I describe as "dithering". As to either being the general term ... I would only turn to their capabilities and ask ... "If an inkjet can halftone, but the halftone process cannot dither, which is the more general term?" Or, are we mixing apples oranges??? shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray
FYI: A great book on PShop (with section on filmscanning) for photographers... it particularly addresses the problems with balancing color from a practical standpoint... is Photoshop 5 5.5 Artistry, by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders, costs about $50 US and worth every penny... has a CD with examples to do the exercises in the book, which is full of color and b/w photos to show the steps and results... Mike Moore Doug Herr wrote: on 2/27/01 5:50 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/26/01 9:47 PM, Doug Herr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: At 06:17 PM 26/02/01 -0800, you wrote: I did do the individual RGB adjustments to the best of my abilities. It was fun seeing what could be done, but my result was still imperfect. Does the darkroom still rule? Or will I eventually learn to beat this problem? -Berry Experience will beat this problem and the darkroom most certainly does not rule. Doug Herr Is this really true? Note that I am not arguing with the point - I love my digital darkroom, and have no problems with most images, but I know I have a long way to go to really understand colour balancing, because it bites me every now and then.. Mark T. I can't claim to be an expert but I'm finding less reason to use color-correcting filters. An example of what can be done is at: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/technique/bluepika.html Doug Herr Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com I looked at your images, Doug, and the background grays, some just like the ones I had trouble with--beyond the depth of field and fading into the sky-- are certainly nice and clean. Very nice. Can you make a few comments about your film, film format, scanner, and image processing technique (e.g., 16-bit or 8-bit to Photoshop? have you encountered the same problem I was referring to, etc.) Thanks, Berry Berry, At this time my own scanner is on my wish list. I'm on the list mostly to absorb as much info as I can before I shell out my own (vaporware) dollars for the scanner that's going to make me rich and famous. I've been using Kodak PhotoCD and I had a lot of trouble getting the colors I wanted until I figured out how to convert the files' color space to Adobe RGB (1998) from the color space the Kodak Acquire module demanded I use (Image-Mode-Profile to Profile). My film is entirely 35mm, mostly Kodachromes, some as far back as 1971 Kodachrome X (i.e., the example posted above). I work in a 24-bit RGB mode, 8 bits per channel. Color corrections involve establishing the white and black points, then tweaking each channel to get the midtones right. It may take several tries on each channel before I'm satisfied. BTW I use an adjustment layer to make the corrections, not altering the original pixel data. Often I even need the discerning eye and impeccable taste of my 12-year-old daughter to get the colors right. I've been told that for the ultimate in color control I ought to adjust with Curves but for now I'm getting by adjusting Levels. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento www.wildlightphoto.com
RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
"Halftoning" really has nothing to do with digital imaging ... I completely disagree. Halftone is a process, and is implementation independent. But in the context of consumer, and pro-sumer inkjet printing, halftoning is not the process used, rather a mixture of finer dots ... dots as fine as possible ... what I describe as "dithering". Both my Epson printers (3000 and 1160) have a 'halftone' setting, as well as my QMS laser printer...so both of them certainly believe they are 'halftoning'. As I said, halftoning is a process that is implementation independent. The way 'halftoning' is done in a digital printer, typically, is to create a halftone cell, which is an x by y group of printer dots. You vary the number of dots that are on, and that pattern to create the halftone. I'm a little miffed...I've designed digital imaging systems for 20 years, and amongst the equipment I designed was for Imagitex, and was a digital halftone pre-press system. The term has always been halftoning in my book...and I am curious how the term 'dithering' came to 'seemingly' replace it. Dithering, as I posted earlier, is something different. It is different than halftoning, and certainly can be used in an implementation of halftoning... Do you have any references that support the term 'dithering' as the PROCESS, not a method/implementation, but the process? I am interested in getting to the bottom of this terminology 'misunderstanding'. I am certainly not saying you are wrong, but I must say if you are right, someone re-wrote the definitions of halftone and dither, and forgot to tell Epson, QMS and Adobe about it, oh, and me too ;-) Here is the first part of the definition of halftone from PS help: "Halftoning: To create the illusion of continuous tones when printed, images are broken down into a series of dots. This process is called halftoning." Which is clearly implementation independent, and does not specify digital or analog. It goes on to say: "Varying the sizes of the dots in a halftone screen creates the optical illusion of variations of gray or continuous color in the image." That, IMO, is an example of an implementation...to vary the size of the dots. I believe other implementations still are halftoning, but not necessarily using varying dot sizes, but varying number of dots per unit area...still to the same end, breaking down the image into a series of dots... The halftone, IMO, is a brilliant process.
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:17:24 +1030 Mark Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Is this really true? I have encountered images where playing with RGB curves has just made me feel like I am drowning (perhaps just in my personal pool of insufficient knowledge!) It's not easy, but it does get easier and quicker to do, with experience. 90% of the problem is identifying what is wrong - what colour the error is and which tones it affects. This *does* get hard if there are a compound mixture of defects, eg wrong colour temp + crossed curves. Frankly the best thing to do is to spend time playing with it. Deadlines help concentrate the mind too:) Often software provides different ways to control much the same thing, eg PS adjust levels, adjust curves, adjust colour balance all provide a different UI to the same fundamental parameter, gamma of the individual channels. The trick is largely knowing which set of controls is appropriate and when. The right ones make matters easier. For instance : say you have a simple case of a pic being too cool because it was taken in light which was too blue. You /could/ fix this entirely by dragging curves around or setting the levels of each channel differently, but it's a far simpler operation to use levels just to set levels (assume auto levels does not help with this). However it's much easier to use Adjust colour balance. My personal way of dealing with this is to try and take out the most obvious error first, which usually means increasing yellow/decreasing blue. However there is usually a secondary shift which also needs dealing with by moving the cyan-red slider toward red. It can be magenta-green though. You should never use all 3 sliders, 2 max. If you feel tempted to, you're doing something wrong with the others. A curious thing I've noticed is that when colour has been successfully corrected, the sliders always line up diagonally if there's a 2 channel error. This is a useful shortcut guide once you are sure which channels need correcting. Mid greys in the pic make life much easier here. If it really was that easy, why would we need colour filters (eg for tungsten lighting on daylight film)? It can be done, though the error is rather gross with slide film because of its contrasty nature. I have 'rescued' daylight Kodachrome exposed via tungsten with no filter with no obvious ill effects. It's easy with colour neg, and a main reason I have swapped to it + scanning is the refreshing ability to be able to take colour pics in almost any lighting conditions without filters. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
My understanding is different. Halftoning is not dithering, but you can use dithering IN the halftone process. Halftone describes a process...as I said in another post. Dithering is a 'function'. I will check out your reference, and perhaps that reference is the source of the confusion. The word dither means "in a state of indecision". That doesn't sound like it describes the actual process, at least to me. I have used 'dither bits' to break up regular patterns in digital signal processing, it is a common technique. It means flipping the LSB of every, typically, other sample. Would you mind scanning in the referenced page(s) for me and emailing it to me off list? I would greatly appreciate that. All the books I have on the subject substantiate my understanding of the terms. One book readily at hand "Principles of Color Proofing, Bruno, 1986" does not even have the word "dither" in the glossary, but does have quite a bit on halftoning. Half-toning is a specific kind of dithering, namely cluster-dot ordered dithering. Another kind of dithering is a random dither, or stochastic dithering. So the general term is dithering, not half-toning. You can read about this in sec. 13.1.2 in Foley and van Dam's classic book, "Computer Graphics" Second Edition. I guess it doesn't matter what Adobe says about it. These are old terms that have been around a lot longer than Photoshop. Austin writes ... Now, another question...why do you call it 'dither' instead of halftone? ... I consider "dither" as the general term, which includes "halftone". "Halftone" would seem best applied to traditional methods, and not include some of the newer techniques ... e.g., "random" or "stoichastic" dithering ... but that may be just me :o) Well, I asked because someone wanted to 'discuss' with me that halftone is not the proper term, that dither was. I've been in digital imaging for over 20 years, and I believe halftone is still appropriate to call the overall process...and dither is but one method employed in halftoning...so I think you have it reversed...and apparently Adobe agrees with me if you check their technical articles on PhotoShop on halftoning...so I was curious why you, also, called it that instead of halftoning. Not saying you're wrong, but my understanding is different. Check the Adobe site and let me know what you thing... If you want the URLs, I can dig them up. Regards, Austin
RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
FYI, check these books out: Digital Color Halftoning (Spie/IEEE Series) by Henry R. Kang Editorial Reviews Book News, Inc. Aimed primarily at technical professionals in the field of digital color imaging, the book explains the halftone process and how to design halftone screens and screenless processes for research and development purposes. The first three parts describe halftone development and techniques from a technological and historical viewpoint; present tools for color measurement and image analysis; and cover fundamental concepts, models, and metrics for halftone design. The last section discusses in-depth each major halftone technique, including clustered-dot-ordered dither, error diffusion, iterative and search-based methods, and inverse halftoning. -- Copyright © 2000 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR All rights reserved -- Digital Halftoning by Robert Ulichney -- Modern Digital Halftoning by Daniel L. Lau, Gonzalo R. Arce --- And there is a host morethey all seem to call it "digital halftoning", and the description of the first book certainly lists "...dithering" as a halftone technique... At least some people still call it "halftoning" ;-) I'll go to BN/MIT COOP and see if they have any of these...
Re: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Austin writes ... "Halftoning" really has nothing to do with digital imaging ... I completely disagree. Halftone is a process, and is implementation independent. ... I only separate "halftoning" and "dithering" chronologically (traditionally), as in "halftone" is the original analog process, and "dithering" is the method by which halftoning is digitally implimented. I don't have a problem with QMS or Epson having "halftone" settings ... it probably best describes the resulting "effect" of the setting ... i.e., imitating traditional halftoning. ... and I don't have references for "dithering" ... I use it is a general term for putting discrete dots together ... for whatever purpose. shAf :o)
