RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. (They don't overflow now, do they? And they will take up less real estate by having them in one control.) There are also two choices the programmer has as to the behavior of tab overflow. One puts out multiple rows and the other puts an arrow at the right that lets you scroll through the tabs. Both options are obnoxious in a most people's opinions. Interfaces should be designed so that tab overflow doesn't happen. One solution when there are a lot of properties is to have nested tab controls, but this is a very thorny problem for programmers, not easily kicked out in a weekend. The Microsoft SDK doesn't support it directly, and I've seldom seen it implemented (I've done it, and know how difficult it is). Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Tyson > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided > that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system, > where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't > remember which ones I've just looked at. > > PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all > settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This > meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was > analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs & > dials, rather than a TV remote control. > > Regards, > > Alan T > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > > the tabs). > >
RE: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
I worked very hard at getting my monitor and printer calibrated so that I could judge fairly accurately what the print is going to look like from what it looks like on the monitor. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Thomas > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets > > > Is there such a thing as a correct monitor? ;-) I don't fuss > much about my > monitor's accuracy (apart from getting the overall gamma about right), > because the final destination of most of my stuff is the printer. So I > compare the print to the projected slide, and also show it to a few other > folk for comments, and therein is my main method of calibration! Mostly, > the monitor is just a vague guide to me - I would much rather believe the > RGB values I see from my eyedropper than what my eyes might be seeing in > the phosphors. (..But I am often told I have strange methodologies...!) > > MT >
filmscanners: Super A3 prints using PS-LE on 1160
This is embarrassing, but: How do you make a 13 x 19" print using Photoshop LE? I find the PS software to be rediculously confusing. I want to make the highest resolution print at the largest size I can using 13 x 19" paper with an 1160. So far, the largest print I can do is 8.75" x 13" on the A3 paper. Any tips would be greatly appreciated. -Berry
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
At 12:15 AM 7/03/01 +, you wrote: >I don't know about the Acer but my Microtek ArtixScan 4000t (now it is >already working well again!) came with the Q60-E3 slide No, the Acer bundle does not include a target or any profiling stuff. You're left pretty much on your own, but at that price level it's hardly surprising, and I'm not one to complain :). >I think >that the color targets are useless unless you have the profiling software >for the the scanner you want profile, but other more experient members of >the list will enlight you on this, I am sure. I don't have the Q60 slide, but I did manage to find it's equivalent 7x5 print bundled with an old Microtek scanner. I find that quite useful - I can take a quick flashlit shot of it with any new film I try and then use it to determine what sort of adjustments I might need to make before printing. I would certainly suggest you find some sort of target that shows a full range of colours (esp. pastels). If it's in print form, just photograph it yourself.. >I suppose that profiling the scanner with standard targets is the only way >insure that the global color management is tuned, but a correctly >calibrate and proliled monitor is of not less importance. Is there such a thing as a correct monitor? ;-) I don't fuss much about my monitor's accuracy (apart from getting the overall gamma about right), because the final destination of most of my stuff is the printer. So I compare the print to the projected slide, and also show it to a few other folk for comments, and therein is my main method of calibration! Mostly, the monitor is just a vague guide to me - I would much rather believe the RGB values I see from my eyedropper than what my eyes might be seeing in the phosphors. (..But I am often told I have strange methodologies...!) MT
re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
A few things to think about in the project of scans. What is your goal? Color accuracy of the current state of the slide or good looking scans that may not reflect the original scene. The main disadvantage with the ScanWit is the exposure is fixed, vuescan does not very the capture time at the CCD since the firmware does not allow this. On slides it's mostly a moot point unless they are underexposed. On negatives it makes it harder to remove the orange mask. Ed had noted the Scanwits are not necessarily the most linear of film scanners... You will have to buy a profiling package such as monaco ezcolor or wiziwig to be able to make profiles from those Q60 slides and then convert the images one at a time in photoshop (could use a batch action) Also Kodachrome is a denser slide generally, which can drop shadows too low for many scanners to distinguish properly. ICE would be nice for getting rid of scratches dust, which gets you into higher prices and the scanwit 2740s. You might pick out a few of the more difficult images and see if you can beg a few sample scans from different scanners to see what differences you might get, although operators make a HUGE difference..:) alan >> I have a Scanwit 2720s, with which I am well pleased. It's >> much the best budget scanner, by all accounts. >> However, even with Ed Hamrick's Vuescan (a nearly essential >> $40 accessory for most scanners) you can exert only limited >> control over its initial output. You'll get its own >> automatic exposure setting whatever you do. You can save the >> 'raw' scanner data, and play with it afterwards, but there's >> little or nothing you can do to control the content of that >> raw file. You can't expose for the shadows specifically, or >> the highlights, for example. Vuescan allows you to extract >> the best from the raw data, once you've got it. >> So if you're into subtleties like accurate calibration, you >> may need to spend more money than you would on the Scanwit, >> to get more control over the scanner.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
- Original Message - From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:45 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > Myself, I think I'd have a problem with not seeing the controls > I'm presently using while I acquire subsequent scans. Hear, hear! >"how > many of us would need use VS in a 800by600 screen size???" I would, for one. I find the standard text on every 1024x768 display I've seen most uncomfortable to read and fuzzy, and 800x600 on a 17" monitor is just right. >Wouldn't > 1024x768 allow for control tabs on the left and display tabs on the > right?? Yes, but I'd get a headache, and have to visit my optician/optometrist more often. Regards, Alan T
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system, where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't remember which ones I've just looked at. PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs & dials, rather than a TV remote control. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > the tabs).
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
I have a Scanwit 2720s, with which I am well pleased. It's much the best budget scanner, by all accounts. However, even with Ed Hamrick's Vuescan (a nearly essential $40 accessory for most scanners) you can exert only limited control over its initial output. You'll get its own automatic exposure setting whatever you do. You can save the 'raw' scanner data, and play with it afterwards, but there's little or nothing you can do to control the content of that raw file. You can't expose for the shadows specifically, or the highlights, for example. Vuescan allows you to extract the best from the raw data, once you've got it. So if you're into subtleties like accurate calibration, you may need to spend more money than you would on the Scanwit, to get more control over the scanner. Good luck, Alan T - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:52 PM Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets > I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so I'll ask a question > that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does it make to purchase > one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for calibrating a new > scanner? I have well in excess of 1000 slides to archive--about equal > numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost $40 and $29 > respectively. > > Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets for calibration, or > is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker, simpler,etc) way to keep the > scanner in calibration? > > BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer ScanWit 2720s is at the > top of my list. > > Thanks in advance. > > Bruce >
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Not necessarily true, What if you're sitting with a small pile of slides to scan, all taken by different people at different times? Maybe a menu check box to save settings for the next scan, or revert to the default settings between scans, with the default assignable. I have been struggling with Insight to find a way to have it prescan with all tools set to default. I keep finding that after the prescan I have to reset all tools. I find that I want to make judgements on each slide individually. BTW, I'm using VueScan now and find I like it. The interface is much more intuitive than it was a few months ago. Thanks ED, you've converted me. Larry Since any session, is entirely dedicated to a >particular roll of film, why not move all concerns for film type to a >menu item?? <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback
I think that this makes a good point regarding Ed's intent for VueScan. His dilemma, if he has one, is how far to take VueScan toward replicating other photo manipulation software rather than staying confined to a scanning program that feeds high quality scans for manipulation in those programs. It would be nice to have it all in one package, but, if that is the case, how much above the $40 US are we willing to pay after we have already invested a pretty good chunk of money into those programs. My feeling is to let Ed stick to providing the highest quality scans that he can get from the many pieces of hardware he supports. He can then let us use other programs to get our final products and keep his price at a level that satisfies all concerned. Gordon IronWorks wrote: > I don't think this is needed in Vuescan - > > PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, etc. can do that afterward. > > Maris > > > | What about subtle rotation of the crop box in the scan window?
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
In this case, this standard doesn't exist just for the heck of it. In fact, the Microsoft "User Experience" standard is extremely well thought out and results from thousands of person years experience with user interfaces and we should really think twice before going against its dictates. In fact, the standard is lots better than most Microsoft programs, which would be a lot better off if they followed their own standard religiously. There are reasons for virtually every aspect of the standard and before we go against them, we'd better have thought about it more than the people who over the last 15 years have derived the standard. 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, March 06, 2001 7:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > Frank writes ... > > > There's no particular reason to have two groups of tabs. This is > completely > > nonstandard. All tabs should be on the same property sheet. > > We could never make any inovative progress if we stayed with > "standards" :o) ... but I understand your gist, and from what I > gathered from Ed's description of his reorganization, I think he's > addressing the current problems with the 2-set approach.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Frank writes ... > There's no particular reason to have two groups of tabs. This is completely > nonstandard. All tabs should be on the same property sheet. We could never make any inovative progress if we stayed with "standards" :o) ... but I understand your gist, and from what I gathered from Ed's description of his reorganization, I think he's addressing the current problems with the 2-set approach. I just had another idea for un-cluttering a tab window, possibly removing entire tab. Since any session, is entirely dedicated to a particular roll of film, why not move all concerns for film type to a menu item?? There may be many "preferences, we'd need less immediate access to, ... preferred color space & whether or not to embed the color space, ... the default application after the scan ... auto scan & auto eject ... watermark ... release memory ... JPEG quality ... all options for the index file ... font size ... beep ... blink ... anyway you get the idea. Can't these be moved to menu items and preference dialogs?? another US$0.02 ... shaf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed writes ... > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > VueScan with one tab visible at a time ... ... some thoughts ... First, and I know I've said this before, but Vuescan's scan window presents inaccurate color. Vuescan allows you to create RGB data for every color space other than that for your monitor, so why should the VS scan window be given much of a priority? This is by no means a complaint ... it simply shifts responsibility for properly viewing the scan to an ICM savvy window or application. VS as is, is actually very handy for this capability ... simply create an embedded JPEG and your ICM savvy application opens it automatically. Voila ... the scan properly presented. I actually prefer this ability, and will continue to use it ... in fact I never even see VS's scan window, until I return to VS, maybe for a better scan or the final scan. Still ... that's me ... my workflow and use of VS may cramp someone else's. Here's another thought which may allow a VS control tab to remain visible (... sort of ...). I might think it may be easy for Ed to deliver the scan presentation to an entirely independent window, which allows for a simple clik or alt-tab to return to the same control window ... or possibly better, Ed can create a intimate link to "Vueprint" ... allowing for histograms, exact cropping, and 'save as'. Still, neither of these options allow for accurate presentation of the color spaces available, but for those who choose sRGB because it's close to monitor space, I believe it would be a better option than allowing the scan presentation to monopolize "scan control". In any case ... please don't make it inconvenient to return to the controls in use when the scan button was pushed. It's a small request, but I think it'll make time spent with Vuescan easier. my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Used to be that NT gave 2G to the OS and 2G to the application. Don't know what Win 2K does. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Finley > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM > > > I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, > including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the > operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the > application to 2GB, > possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office > > mike > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: 06 March 2001 15:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM > > > > PAUL GRAHAM writes ... > > > I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format > > scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... > > ... > > Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size > > in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) > > ... > > > > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program > > (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar > > ... > > The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, > which, I believe, includes virtual memory. > > shAf :o) >
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I am for this. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | I'm curious what people think of the idea of having | VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having | one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan | visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all | the tabs). | | I've figured out how to make updating the preview | and scan tabs almost instantaneous, so speed | isn't an issue. Is there any particular reason to | have two groups of tabs? | | The advantage of having all the tabs in one group | is that you can display the preview and scan in | more screen space, and the names of all the tabs | are visible at the same time. | | The problem with having the preview and scan | tabs on the left and the other tabs in a smaller | column on the right is that the tabs don't all | fit, and you need to click an arrow to display | more of the tabs on the right. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick | | P.S. I just got the LS-40 scanning with VueScan | 6.7.6. It works quite nicely.
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM > > > AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of > the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt > that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since > Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most > of the 4GB available to applications. > Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback
I don't think this is needed in Vuescan - if it's off just a little, then 99% of the time the first adjustment will also be off, and often the second, third, and so forth. PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, etc. can do that afterward. Maris - Original Message - From: "Daniel Merchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback | What about subtle rotation of the crop box in the scan window? If VueScan | currently does this, then I don't know how to use it. I have had a few | instance of the slide being a little "off", where I think "off" is on the | order of + or - 5 degrees. |
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
There's no particular reason to have two groups of tabs. This is completely nonstandard. All tabs should be on the same property sheet. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > the tabs).
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
To me this is good news - they are working with their software's competitor, but hopefully it helps both of you out. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan | In a message dated 3/6/2001 5:05:01 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | writes: | | > How about support for the ls-8000? | | It depends when Nikon can loan me one. They're quite good | about loaning me scanners, so I suspect I'll get this working | right before the LS-8000 and LS-4000 become widely available. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick |
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
I don't know about the Acer but my Microtek ArtixScan 4000t (now it is already working well again!) came with the Q60-E3 slide and the corresponding profiling software bundled and included in the price. I think that the color targets are useless unless you have the profiling software for the the scanner you want profile, but other more experient members of the list will enlight you on this, I am sure. I suppose that profiling the scanner with standard targets is the only way insure that the global color management is tuned, but a correctly calibrate and proliled monitor is of not less importance. Search for bundled targets and software in your list of possible purchases and get assured that if you must buy a separate color target you will have the means to apply it to the scanner that you want profile. All this would seem very confuse for me a couple of monthes ago, but now I am already obtaining good results -- anyone that begins is a "newbie" and all the gurus have been "newbies" -- don't be intimidated by the initial problems and confusion, they soon will be overriden. I hope this helps. Regards, Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 06 March, 2001 9:52 PM Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets | I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so I'll ask a question | that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does it make to purchase | one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for calibrating a new | scanner? I have well in excess of 1000 slides to archive--about equal | numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost $40 and $29 | respectively. | | Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets for calibration, or | is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker, simpler,etc) way to keep the | scanner in calibration? | | BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer ScanWit 2720s is at the | top of my list. | | Thanks in advance. | | Bruce | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I like the idea of 1 set of tabs, the split always seemed unnatural to me. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > the tabs).
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback
What about subtle rotation of the crop box in the scan window? If VueScan currently does this, then I don't know how to use it. I have had a few instance of the slide being a little "off", where I think "off" is on the order of + or - 5 degrees.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed asks ... > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > the tabs). > ... > The problem with having the preview and scan > tabs on the left and the other tabs in a smaller > column on the right is that the tabs don't all > fit, and you need to click an arrow to display > more of the tabs on the right. Myself, I think I'd have a problem with not seeing the controls I'm presently using while I acquire subsequent scans. I therefore wonder if you should be considering what minimum screen resolution you should be designing for. That is, maybe I should simply ask ... "how many of us would need use VS in a 800by600 screen size???" Wouldn't 1024x768 allow for control tabs on the left and display tabs on the right?? (... I always use VS at full screen size ... and 'alt-tab' between applications ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Thanks for the info Ed. I plan on getting the LS-40 when they are available in Canada. The suggested retail is half the price of the LS-4000. By the time I get the LS-40 you should have all the bugs worked out in Vuescan:) Dale - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:11 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan > In a message dated 3/6/2001 2:09:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > LS40? Is that the Coolscan IV ED? > > Yes - that's the same thing. > > Interestingly, NikonScan 3.0 that came with this scanner > also works with my LS-30. The commands that these > scanners use are almost identical. NikonScan 3.0 > with the LS-30 has the same limitations - 8-bits only. > It also doesn't enable DIgital GEM and Digital ROC > with the LS-30 (but it does with the LS-40). > > Also, I just got VueScan to come up and talk to the > LS-40, without changing any code. It doesn't scan yet, > but it's going to pretty soon.
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
At this rate you should have support for the LS-16000 in a week or so! Oh, yeah: :-)
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
I would think that 1 slide target would be sufficient because you are calibrating the scanner as a whole once, not 2 separate calibrations - one for Kodachrome and one for Ektachrome. I think, however, that you would be wise to also purchase the 5X7 Ektacolor target, to compare to your monitor after the scan and to the printer after printing. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:52 PM Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets | I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so I'll ask a question | that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does it make to purchase | one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for calibrating a new | scanner? I have well in excess of 1000 slides to archive--about equal | numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost $40 and $29 | respectively. | | Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets for calibration, or | is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker, simpler,etc) way to keep the | scanner in calibration? | | BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer ScanWit 2720s is at the | top of my list. | | Thanks in advance. | | Bruce
filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I'm curious what people think of the idea of having VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all the tabs). I've figured out how to make updating the preview and scan tabs almost instantaneous, so speed isn't an issue. Is there any particular reason to have two groups of tabs? The advantage of having all the tabs in one group is that you can display the preview and scan in more screen space, and the names of all the tabs are visible at the same time. The problem with having the preview and scan tabs on the left and the other tabs in a smaller column on the right is that the tabs don't all fit, and you need to click an arrow to display more of the tabs on the right. Regards, Ed Hamrick P.S. I just got the LS-40 scanning with VueScan 6.7.6. It works quite nicely.
RE: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Ed writes ... > I certainly intend to implement SCSI over Firewire (which is what > scanners use - the SBP2 protocol). It may take me a bit longer > to get it working on Mac OS than Windows though. It turns > out that this is really, really easy for me to add on Windows. > ... You make "SCSI" vs "firewire" sound as simple as what would allow for a SCSI-to-firewire converter. I have to admit, I haven't seriously looked into firewire ... yet ... figuring the time would come when I either needed another computer or the LS-4000. What advantages does firewire have over SCSI?? Any idea why Nikon switched to fw, and didn't impliment both? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Gordon writes ... > Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. > I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no > advantage unless you want another file of the > same scan. ... Exactly! Keep in mind, you, at least some of us, want another file. If you scan into a color space, you really do not have any idea what the scan really looks like until it is opened into Photoshop. That is why I turn on "saving a 1/4 res JPEG" and scan memory 'til I get it right ... and then I turn on "full res TIFF". Speaking of which ... is there any chance we'll see the next version of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and your scans will appear under-saturated in Vuescan, but fine in Photoshop. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Mike wrote: > I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB > adressable space, including virtual memory. Some > of this is probably reserved for the operating > system, probably reducing the maximum for the > application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time > I'll look into this when I'm in the office AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. As I mentioned earlier, a much more important consideration would be processor speed and disk drive speed. RAID and fast drives would be essential to avoid waiting for ages just to load and save files. Using different spindles for the OS, working files and scratch space would probably help. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Vuescan feedback - zoom (was: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements)
>IMO providing the zoom feature just for more accurate >cropping would be very low priority. With all due respect, for some of us a more precise crop will help a lot with limiting white point determination and constraining color adjustment calculations to the desired crop areas. For now we can fuzz that with the buffer (and border) controls; but a precise crop is definitely worth something. Along this line, a film strip scan with a Photosmart scanner displays the entire strip in preview. It can be really difficult to get a good crop selection on one frame of a strip. (I use a LS-30 now but started film scanning with the original scsi Photosmart -- as did Ed!). -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
In a message dated 3/6/2001 5:05:01 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > How about support for the ls-8000? It depends when Nikon can loan me one. They're quite good about loaning me scanners, so I suspect I'll get this working right before the LS-8000 and LS-4000 become widely available. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
In a message dated 3/6/2001 2:09:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > LS40? Is that the Coolscan IV ED? Yes - that's the same thing. Interestingly, NikonScan 3.0 that came with this scanner also works with my LS-30. The commands that these scanners use are almost identical. NikonScan 3.0 with the LS-30 has the same limitations - 8-bits only. It also doesn't enable DIgital GEM and Digital ROC with the LS-30 (but it does with the LS-40). Also, I just got VueScan to come up and talk to the LS-40, without changing any code. It doesn't scan yet, but it's going to pretty soon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
In a message dated 3/6/2001 1:58:56 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Is the main improvement of the LS-40 over the LS-30 the USB connection, 12 > bits vs. 10 bits, and slightly higher DPI? Yes, although with NikonScan it's 12 bits vs. 8 bits. In addition, the LS-40 adds Digital ROC and Digital GEM (similar to VueScan's Restore colors and Clean options). > Also, what will the street price > be and when will they be available? I have no idea. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
In a message dated 3/6/2001 1:35:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > S ... you plan on implimenting 'firewire'. I just read on > another list ... in the context of a "Linoscan " ... you implied no > such plans I certainly intend to implement SCSI over Firewire (which is what scanners use - the SBP2 protocol). It may take me a bit longer to get it working on Mac OS than Windows though. It turns out that this is really, really easy for me to add on Windows. Umax has promised to loan me a Firewire scanner to do the development with, although it's possible that Nikon will come up with a Firewire loaner first. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Mike writes ... > I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, > including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the > operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the > application to 2GB, > I just checked, you are correct ... not 4Gb ... each app is allocated 2Gb (a MIPS throwback). (... reference Minasi's "Mastering Windows 2000 Professional" ...) shAf :o) > > PAUL GRAHAM writes ... > > > I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format > > scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... > > ... > > Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size > > in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) > > ... > > > > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program > > (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar > > ... > > The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, > which, I believe, includes virtual memory. > > shAf :o) > >
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no advantage unless you want another file of the same scan. I would prefer changing it to something like PreScan, which will do the scan, not output a file, and allow me to check the changes I make to the what I thought was the last preview, if it is unsatisfactory. This will allow the previews to operate quuickly yet allow me to verify that the SCAN is what I want. If I think that the scan will be fine, I can skip it and do the Scan to the output file. If I use it and then scan to output, I will know that it is whayt I want. Gordon John Matturri wrote: > A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find > myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the > scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if > this might be due to something about my system though. > > John M.
filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so I'll ask a question that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does it make to purchase one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for calibrating a new scanner? I have well in excess of 1000 slides to archive--about equal numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost $40 and $29 respectively. Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets for calibration, or is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker, simpler,etc) way to keep the scanner in calibration? BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer ScanWit 2720s is at the top of my list. Thanks in advance. Bruce
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Ed, How about support for the ls-8000? Asael www.DigitalPhotographicArt.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure" > and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure". > This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set > the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan. Ed, As a VueScan and NikonScan user (I have an LS-30), I have to say that I cannot figure out what values I would put into VueScan in the two fields you mentioned whereas I use the NikonScan analog gain quite a bit - I can set negative or positive EV numbers. I just looked at VueScan, and if I turn off Auto exposure, I get the following numbers in the RBG exposure 0.925 and Infrared 1.999. I don't know what those mean, why they're different or what I should set them to. I looked at the help and it says that the numbers are a multiplier, so I assume that 0.925 is the equivalent of a small negative EV in NikonScan. I think this is a good general illustration of the difficulties of the VueScan interface. Even when I know what I want to do, I can't figure out what combination of boxes to check or what magic numbers need to be entered. When I have a problem scan, VueScan generally does a much better job than NikonScan in producing a quality image. However, I still find VueScan so hard to figure out that I use NikonScan most of the time. I think the general issue is that related things are not connected in the interface in any way. For example, when I asked Ed why I couldn't use cleaning, I didn't realize I had to set bits per pixel in the color tab to 64 as well as set the Clean in the Options tab to Clean. There are no clues that these two things are related. In NikonScan I have one pull down list for off/clean/clean+sharpen. To get back to the Analog Gain issue, why wouldn't you just have a +/- EV control for that? And how on earth would the user know what to put for the infrared exposure when that's something you can't see anyway? Another user had commented that workflow rather than logical groupings should drive the organization of the user interface. I think I agree with that although it is a hard problem to support the workflow of many different scanners with one interface. regards, Jo Ann
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf Sent: 06 March 2001 15:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM PAUL GRAHAM writes ... > I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format > scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... > ... > Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size > in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) > ... > > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program > (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar > ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: analog gain vs. auto exposure in vuescan [was Re: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements]
Jules writes ... > so just let me understand this: auto-exposure in > VueScan (at least in the LS-2000) controls the > analog gain controls, not levels? is this the way > NikonScan works too? > > ... Yes, Nikonscan works this way. During its prescan, the best exposure is determined ... however & although you have no idea what it came up with in terms of a hard value, you are able to make manual adjustments via "analog gain", which because Nikonscan is intimate with the scanner, can make these adjustments with intuitive and relative EI increments. I believe, because Vuescan primarily caters to film scanners, Ed can assume a photographer is using it. Leastwise, if he does decide to make adjustments "intuitive", he makes them intuitive for "photographers". my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed - I hope you _really_ wanted all of this feed back. :-) It sure beats talking about CD-Rs and printers. Most of my comments just reiterate what others have already told you, but it never hurts to repeat good ideas. I think your rearrangement of the options is a very good idea. I am always having to hunt around in order to find out where I need to set a particular option and it is never clear which options affect the raw scan and which ones only apply to the post scan processing. It looks like your rearrangement separates the device options (affecting the raw scan), the color and cropping options (affecting the image appearance), the file options, and the miscellaneous options. I would put the tabs containing the options on the left side and the image tabs on the right. Actually, why are there two sets of tabs? Is there much loss if the options and image are not visible at the same time? This would let the image fill more of the window. In addition to zooming in and out, I think you need "Actual Pixels" and "Fit Image" buttons. The buttons could be quite small and just labeled "---", "-", "+", and "+++". I hope you realize that this will create more pressure on you to color correct the displayed image. Identical to the way Photoshop will display the image (i.e., embedded color space --> monitor color space) should suffice. :-) I like the idea of having a grabber to move the zoomed image around. When the cursor is near the crop box, it should change to "|", "_", "|_", etc. Any other time it would be available for moving the image around. If you implement the ability to auto focus within a region, the cursor should also change near the focus box. Any time the cursor is within the image I would like to have a read out at the bottom displaying the XY position and the RGB value.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed-- I sometimes use zooming as a "throw away" to better correct colors & detail-definition, where the real "subject" is perhaps 10% or less of the full picture. Will your implementation of the new zoom feature in Vuscan permit this, or would the image have to be rescanned with the adjusted settings after zooming? Both methods are do-able, but the first is faster. Best regards--LRA PS--I really wish other software developers would open up dialogs like this--HINT! for any of them reading the List. >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: March 6, 2001 5:03:20 PM GMT >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements >In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I see. This raises the question of what the zoom >> feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be >> useful for cropping in the main. >Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely. >Regards, Ed Hamrick --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:52 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > Manually adjusting exposure, also brings up a point. I wish the > number which would be input could be more intuitive. For example, if > I wanted to increase the exposure by an f/stop equivelent, then double > the number; 2 stops, quadruple the number. Trying to do this > obviously brings up the question of doing this, and also having it > equivalently affect ALL scanners VS supports. In this context, we do > have to be careful/understanding when we make such suggestions for VS. brilliant idea. it would so cool to do all the measurements and adjustements in terms of EI values. this would be technically difficult to do, because each scanner would have to have it's own scales, calibrations might be off, etc. also, it may be intuitive to photographers, but what about graphic artists? is VueScan directed at photographers only? ~j
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed Hamrick wrote: >I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where it sometimes moves the crop box and other times moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning users. I tend to agree. I've had my fill of "gimmickey" cursors, and the supposedly-changeable ones in PS bug the devil out of me. IMHO Ed's straight-ahead approach seems logical and easy-enough to use, once you get used to it. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I agree with Rob. Windows Common Dialog Boxes are what we have become accustomed to. (Forgive me Mac users!) Anything else is cumbersome and slows down our work, unless we are scanning every day and thereby get used to Vuescan's uniqueness. But most of us would rather be shooting pictures every day and scanning less frequently. Therefore something more standard would be greatly beneficial. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:17 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > Michael wrote: > > I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan > > program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, > > and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. > > IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon > for setting the paths. That way it's done visually and you don't have to > remember or type the text by hand. I'm talking about interface style when > I mention the common dialog box - it would increase the size of the install > to include the actual OCX (comdlg32.ocx, 137KB). > > The common dialog box also allows you to create directories in the process > of creating the path, which is very handy. > > Rob > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > >
filmscanners: RE: [No Subject]
Paul wrote: >Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one programme (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar memory limits? (noticed some of the newestWindows motherboards can take 3Gb+ in RAM) The last thing I am is a "Hardware Head," but I've seen a bit about "stacked" processing, RAM & HDs lately. Just a *thought* that somebody more qualified could add to. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
filmscanners: analog gain vs. auto exposure in vuescan [was Re: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements]
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:03 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > In a message dated 3/6/2001 10:21:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of the LS-2000? > > Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure" > and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure". > This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set > the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan. superb! so auto exposure adjusts those analog values? i thought it was a post scan processing thing. i guess this means it's critical that even the raw scan is cropped correctly, originally i thought the raw scan didn't get any autoexposure, that it's always scanned the same way. again, i must have missed the message alluded to here where the options that apply to raw scan output are listed. this would be extremely helpful as right now i'm not taking full advantage not knowing when i have to do a real rescan and when i can just work from the raw. for example, i scanned some Fuji Provia-F 100 and it came out a bit dark. i adjusted the brightness setting under colors and rescanned from raw and that seemed to have helped, although the colors were off (easily corrected). i'd much rather have adjusted the analog gain, but that would have required a rescan (according to what this message says). so just let me understand this: auto-exposure in VueScan (at least in the LS-2000) controls the analog gain controls, not levels? is this the way NikonScan works too? sorry if these are stupid questions, but i'm still having trouble grocking all this. ~j
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Ed, LS40? Is that the Coolscan IV ED? Dale From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I just thought I'd let the people on this mailing list know that > Nikon loaned me an LS-40 today. I installed it and traced > the USB commands, and it looks like it will be quite easy to > add support for it to VueScan. It encapsulates SCSI > commands in USB packets, and these SCSI commands are > almost identical to the commands used by the LS-2000.
filmscanners: Vuescan improvements
I would like to chime in on Vuescan improvements. To me the most useful improvement would be having the preview update automatically when one changes the settings in the color and media tabs, such as image brightness or black or white point settings. I often run preview several times to get the setting that looks best to me. It would be a big help to see the effects of a change in settings immediately . It has been interesting to see the gradual evolvement in the software over the last year and I'm grateful that someone in this business improves their product continuously while providing good value . Regards, Jim Baxley
Re: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
In a message dated 03/06/2001 12:09:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << It appears to have the same type of limitations as the LS-30/LS-2000. For instance, the LS-40 is 12-bits, the LS-4000 is 14-bits. The LS-4000 has single-pass multi-sampling, support for the SF200 slide feeder, and support for the roll film adapter, the LS-40 doesn't. In addition, the LS-40 uses USB and is 2900 dpi, while the LS-4000 uses Firewire and is 4000 dpi. >> Is the main improvement of the LS-40 over the LS-30 the USB connection, 12 bits vs. 10 bits, and slightly higher DPI? Also, what will the street price be and when will they be available? Ed
RE: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Ed writes ... > ... > > ... > I looked at the .inf file for the LS-4000 and it > uses SCSI over Firewire, which means it should > be just as easy to add support for in VueScan. > ... S ... you plan on implimenting 'firewire'. I just read on another list ... in the context of a "Linoscan " ... you implied no such plans (... altho the future number of LS-4000s sold probably is an encentive ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed, Thanks for the opportunity for all of us to give you input. 1.) The zoom preview sounds awesome. If we could zoom in two to four times to 400% it would be even better. 2.) Yes. 3.) Sounds like a good improvement. I would also suggest that a Prescan Tab should be added to the left side that would display a Prescan Window. A Prescan button would also be added that would allow a low resolution prescan of whatever film was placed in the scanner, up to 40 frames. The frames would be displayed in the Prescan window as thumbnails. These thumbnails would be selectable via the mouse using standard Windows selection techniques. (left click, control-left click, shift-left click). The selection would show up in the Frame Number settings, which would now be on the updated Crop Tab. While your at it, a histogram with mouse selectable white and black points would be way cool. Along with a little Unsharp Mask most images could be scanned and be ready to go straight out of Vuescan. Photoshop would only be needed for image manipulation or darkroom type finessing, not for scanning images. And the value of Vuescan will have grown exponentially (IMO). Keep up the great work! Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. > > These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you > don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done > differently: > > 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double > (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While > zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. > I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space. > > 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the > window and move all the option tabs to the right side of > the window. > > 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them > a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came > from a helpful user): > > Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, > Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, > Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. > > Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus > all the items in the Media tab. > > Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, > from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. > > Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, > Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. > > Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the > Window tab. > > If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please > let me know soon. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I see. This raises the question of what the zoom > > feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it > to be > > useful for cropping in the main. > > Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping > more precisely. Mainly? How far might we hope that it will provide the ability to view better things like exposure or focusing adjustments? IMO providing the zoom feature just for more accurate cropping would be very low priority. Joel W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> > I see. This raises the question of what the zoom > > feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be > > useful for cropping in the main. > > Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely. As well as exposure I would venture to guess...
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
On my LS-30 the abort command acts with what I consider reasonable speed, considering that the scanner has to physically stop it motion etc. As I recall, Ed did previously improve the abort command. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:50 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | "Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote re the abort button: | > I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. | | I suspect this is more to do with how well the scanner responds to | an abort instruction while scanning than vuescan itself. | | Rob | | |
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Jules writes ... > > I think many on the list would vote for a separate > checkbox control to > > enable grain removal independently of the > clean/scrub/scour setting. > > but scrub = clean + grain removal > and > scour = clean + heavier grain removal > > why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain > removal WITHOUT clean? Presumably Ed's implimentation of "dust removal" would be an on/off switch, and the implimentation of "grain removal" would be a pull down list. I imagine this might cater to less confusion, and possibly those who simply do not want to throw another filter at they're data if they choose some degree of grain removal. I am with you, and find Ed's dust removal via IR so innocuous I use it all the time ... it doesn't bother me that its also part of grain removal. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I see. This raises the question of what the zoom > feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be > useful for cropping in the main. Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Jules writes ... > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > > > > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan > > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. > > > ... > > since you're asking for suggestions: > are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of > the LS-2000? > it's a very powerful feature, especially with tricky chromes. I agree, but need admit I used it for effect, rather than to adjust individual RGB for correction. I may be wrong, but VS provides for this in its ability to manually adjust "exposure", albeit a master control rather than individual RGB. Manually adjusting exposure, also brings up a point. I wish the number which would be input could be more intuitive. For example, if I wanted to increase the exposure by an f/stop equivelent, then double the number; 2 stops, quadruple the number. Trying to do this obviously brings up the question of doing this, and also having it equivalently affect ALL scanners VS supports. In this context, we do have to be careful/understanding when we make such suggestions for VS. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/6/2001 10:21:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of the LS-2000? Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure" and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure". This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
I just thought I'd let the people on this mailing list know that Nikon loaned me an LS-40 today. I installed it and traced the USB commands, and it looks like it will be quite easy to add support for it to VueScan. It encapsulates SCSI commands in USB packets, and these SCSI commands are almost identical to the commands used by the LS-2000. I haven't done any testing of image quality or sharpness since I'm mainly focused on getting it working with VueScan. It appears to have the same type of limitations as the LS-30/LS-2000. For instance, the LS-40 is 12-bits, the LS-4000 is 14-bits. The LS-4000 has single-pass multi-sampling, support for the SF200 slide feeder, and support for the roll film adapter, the LS-40 doesn't. In addition, the LS-40 uses USB and is 2900 dpi, while the LS-4000 uses Firewire and is 4000 dpi. I looked at the .inf file for the LS-4000 and it uses SCSI over Firewire, which means it should be just as easy to add support for in VueScan. I hope to get the LS-40 supported in the next few days (maybe a week) and I'll work on the LS-4000 whenever Nikon can loan me one. The LS-40 will be supported on both Windows and Mac OS in the next release. If someone wants to modify the Linux SCSI->USB device driver, I'd be happy to tell them what modifications are needed. Once this is done, the next release of VueScan will work with the LS-40 on Linux also. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Joel asks ... > ... This raises the question of what the zoom > feature is for, ... One of the few features I appreciated about Nikonscan was the ability to zoom in and focus. Without this capability I would have never realized the focusing issues which affect scanning with my LS-2000 ... for example, the difference for holding the film flat between the film strip feeder and the film strip holder. Presumably, Vuescan can allow us to zoom in this far(?) The use of "strip holder" vs "strip feeder" brings up another bugaboo with VS. That being, because I choose to scan my negatives with the film strip holder, VS "mode" assumes I am scanning a slide. I do understand this has no affect on choosing the proper media (at least, I hope not), but it is confusing. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "Collin Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote: > > > I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except > > in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for > > "scrub" & "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) > > Ed, > > I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to > enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. but scrub = clean + grain removal and scour = clean + heavier grain removal why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? ~j
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. these sound great, thanks for an awesome product. since you're asking for suggestions: are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of the LS-2000? it's a very powerful feature, especially with tricky chromes. ~j
filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
PAUL GRAHAM writes ... > I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format > scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... > ... > Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size > in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) > ... > > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program > (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar > ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be > possible > > to use instead a hand to grab the image with the > mouse > > and pull it to the location one wants, like > ACDSee? > > The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the > middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, > and dragging the image only lets you move it one > screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick > scrolling > anywhere within the image). > > I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where > it sometimes moves the crop box and other times > moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid > modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning > users. I see. This raises the question of what the zoom feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be useful for cropping in the main. I had supposed it might be useful to zoom a portion in order to see the effects more readily of different preview/color options. My notion would be that when the thing is in zoom mode, you wouldn't be able to crop (but this is because I almost always just scan the full frame and crop in PS). Joel W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
>Rob Geraghty wrote: > >The only interface feature of vuescan which regularly drives me crazy is >resizing the outline for the crop. Sometimes dragging an edge moves the >whole box, sometimes it's possible to set the area outside the scannable >area, sometimes it drags the corner instead of the side or vice versa. > Amen to that! Drives me up the wall, too. Charles
filmscanners: Re: Windows 2K RAM limits
"PAUL GRAHAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one programme (eg Photoshop), > does Windows 2000 have similar memory limits? (noticed some of the newest > Windows motherboards can take 3Gb+ in RAM) Your main problem will be finding motherboards that support more than 1GB. >From Microsoft's KB Article ID: Q256070 Before you upgrade to Windows 2000, be aware that Windows 2000 requires the following resources as a minimum. If your computer does not have these resources available, Microsoft does not recommend that you upgrade to Windows 2000: 133 MHz or faster Pentium-compatible CPU 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM minimum; more RAM memory generally improves responsiveness (4 gigabytes [GB] of RAM maximum) 2-GB hard disk with a minimum of 650 MB of free space (additional free hard disk space is required if you are installing over a network) So the answer to your question is 4GB. You would probably want to give serious consideration to a dual processor motherboard and a RAID array for storage. Gigabyte makes motherboards with onboard Promise IDE RAID. Have a look for the GA-6RX which supports up to 4GB RAM and has onboard support for RAID 1, but it's only a single CPU board. http://www4.gigabyte.com.tw/products/6rx.htm Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the > middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, > and dragging the image only lets you move it one > screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling > anywhere within the image). I for one would prefer that clicking in the crop box did *not* move it under any circumstances. I've never seen a cropping mechanism that works this way anywhere else, and I suspect it's the cause of some of my frustration with positioning and sizing. It's much easier to (as in the HP TWAIN interface) start the corner of a new crop box if you click outside the existing one and drag to size it, or just drag the edges of an existing box. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
"Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote re the abort button: > I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. I suspect this is more to do with how well the scanner responds to an abort instruction while scanning than vuescan itself. Rob
No Subject
Hi all, I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format scanners for my 6x7 negs, and checked out the specs on their site. Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) If Vuescan works with these scanners (likely I'm sure, with Ed so on the button) then you could be saving RGB+ I which means raw scans are 33% larger still... This is all getting me very anxious - they say you need minimum of 3 x file size in RAM so we're already way over the 1.5Gb on most boards.. Any advice/ experiences? Am I worrying about nothing? If you run out of RAM and write to good modern hard drives do things really stop dead? Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one programme (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar memory limits? (noticed some of the newest Windows motherboards can take 3Gb+ in RAM) Before anyone comments on RAM costs, I just saw 512Mb units (PC133 SDRAM) for $207... so it's feasible to buy 2Gb plus for 'only' around $800 Any advice/tips welcome, Paul
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Changes sound good to me too. Please do make these changes. Thanks in advance. First I thought I should not reply because you (Ed) asked for opinions of people who objected to the suggested changes or who would like things to be done differently. Finally I came up with a suggestion, but the real suggestion is in the first line. Just a little thought on behaviour which is arguably a bug: I use preview memory setting and it does not seem to remember from which frame (in Scanwit case 1-4, 1-6) the last preview came. So if e.g. I batch scanned a set '1, 2F, 3R-6R' and enter a new set for the new frames '1, 2F-4F, 5, 6L' the preview will immediately turn the last frame preview of the previous set (6R) to the orientation of the first frame of the next set (1, i.e. to the left) and the crop box does not change orientation. Please let the crop box always follow the orientation of the preview (perhaps you already did, but the bug is in remembering the frame in the preview to which the orientation applies). Also if possible and not objectionable do not calculate the preview from memory of the frame of the last preview if it does not equal the frame (number) of the next (to be done) preview. I hope I made myself clear, it is hard to tell what I mean without showing it. Of course: I do not have the newest Vuescan version, but I know it is in the 6.7.x range. Jerry. > -Original Message- > From: Ezio [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > > YES ! > Thanks Ed ! > [] > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:56 AM > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements > > > > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan > > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. > > > These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you > don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done > differently: >
Re: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones)
In a message dated 3/6/2001 2:50:05 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > 3. it would be really nice if the user interface somehow told you > what options affect the raw file and which don't. is there a list? There isn't a list. The options are in the Device tab, the Crop tab, and in the Options tab the focus and exposure options. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones)
sorry, i looked back through all of Ed Hamrich messages since i joined the list (mid feb) and i didn't see one that answered this. can you point me in the right direction? - Original Message - From: "IronWorks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones) > 3.By now you've seen the answer to this from Ed Hamrich. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jules" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:03 AM > Subject: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones) > > > | 3. it would be really nice if the user interface somehow told you what > | options affect the raw file and which don't. is there a list?
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 and SS4000
In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:20:57 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > When I do a final scan with the SS4000, instead of the carrier being pulled > through continuously, now it's moving with a start-stop motion. Is that an > expected change? This just means it's running too slowly to keep the carrier moving at full speed. Did you turn on the "Files|Output raw file" or "Files|Output log file" options? These can slow things down. Are there other programs (like Photoshop) running at the same time? These can take memory away from VueScan, making it run slower because of page faulting. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible > to use instead a hand to grab the image with the mouse > and pull it to the location one wants, like ACDSee? The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, and dragging the image only lets you move it one screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling anywhere within the image). I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where it sometimes moves the crop box and other times moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning users. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. At 12:40 AM 03/06/2001 -0500, you wrote: >A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find >myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the >scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if >this might be due to something about my system though. > >John M.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Alan wrote: > > I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do > > have to point out that directory creation already happens, > > and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw, > > TIFF, or JPEG file name fields! > > Which is nice, but less foolproof than the common dialog box. > If you make a mistake anywhere in the directory structure, a > new structure with the error in it will be created. The common > dialog box only creates one level at a time. > > Rob > Good point.
