RE: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:26:11 -0500 Rick Berk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Jim please tell me you're kidding. ME was solid out of the box? Enough, please. This is well off-topic. And it will run and run if not nailed... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:04:01 +0100 Michael Wilkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If you are working quickly its almost impossible to use gels unless > you've used the location before. Specially if it's flourescents ;). However, then it's difficult to see the v/f image. > The drawback to any on camera colour correction though is that in mixed > lighting you can only correct for one source. Quite. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
- Original Message - From: "Rick Berk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Now, I was reading a bulletin board at zdnet last night where people > did nothing to bash MS left and right, and sing the praises of Unix. I know Which version of Unix would that be then. Richard Corbett
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Investigate it - it's what you want. From the Help file: "Prefs tab Get dpi from/Dpi or width These options let you specify how to compute the dots per inch (dpi) of the cropped images. The dpi can be the same as the scanned image, can be explicitly set, or can be computed so that the width of the cropped image can be a specified number of inches, cm, or mm. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:07 AM Subject: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l | Derek wrote:| [epson stuff snipped]| > If you scan a 24x36mm negative or slide at 300 ppi and| > then print it at 300ppi, what will be the size of the| > resulting picture? 24x36mm!| | OK, perhaps the question may have been confusing due to some assumptions| I made. In Vuescan, AFAIK you don't get to alter the relationship between| PPI and the DPI which is encoded into the resulting file. There was an| option somwhere for "get the dpi from" I think, but I confess I haven't| investigated it. Anyway, using the default settings in Vuescan if you scan| with an LS30 you get a 2700dpi file.| By contrast, in Nikonscan you can scan at 2700ppi but output a file which| has a setting of 300dpi encoded into it - so the printed size would be much| bigger.| | >A 2700dpi scan implies a 9x magnification factor, so your 300ppi print| | >will come out at 216x324 mm, or slightly larger than A4.| | Yes, Nikonscan has a maximum "magnification" of 900%. It's not really magnification| at all - it's just the relationship between the pixels and the encoded dpi.| | >So always scan slides and negs at the best resolution you can get.| | There's reasons I would want to do otherwise, but not when I want to print| the scan on my Epson. Presumably the answer to my question is that most| people (if not everyone) scans a source file at 2700dpi (or whatever their| maximum optical scanner resolution is) and change the output dpi later in| Photoshop or whatever editor they use.| | Rob| | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://wordweb.com| | | |
filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. Sincerely. Ezio
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: [re get dpi from in vuescan] >Investigate it - it's what you want. From the Help file: Actually the only reason it may be necessary is that one of the changes in Paintshop Pro 7 is that it (unlike 6) doesn't seem to be able to change the dpi without resampling. :-7 Otherwise getting a file out of vuescan set to 2700dpi wouldn't bother me. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
"Jim Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been scanning into sRGB. I'll be using these scans on the web > ultimately so I assumed that was the way to go. I also leave the scanner > on all the time so the warmup thing is not an issue. What resolution will you be using on the net? If it's nothing like the full resolution of the scanner, I find I get great results by using the "Size Reduction" feature in Vuescan. Give it a try; it's under the Options tab. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
"shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob writes ...
> > Er, doesn't PS 5.5 allow you to say what profile the
> > image is coming from when the image is untagged?
> Yes ... but it seems to me that list of profiles is particular to
> working spaces, excluding device profiles ... or maybe I'm wrong. If
> so, then it should work for PS5 as well.
I just checked and it lists all the loaded profiles - all the PS ones and
all the ICM ones which are in the system.
> > Does "Device RGB" invert a negative, or is the output
> > still raw and without the mask removed?
> Altho I haven't had a chance to play with this option, that would
> seem to be it's purpose ... so you can fully process ("crop") and
> leave the RGB data in the color space it was scanned into.
I'll have to give this a try - and open it in PS using the LS30's own
profile...
Rob
Re: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Film Scanners News Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ? > Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. > > Sincerely. > > Ezio > > >
Re: filmscanners: 7.0.6 Great !
Yuri, Did you report the problem to Ed. Dale > 7.0.6 causes my SCSI HP Photosmart scanner to change from "negative" > to "print" mode halfway through a scan with disastrous results for the > last frame on the negative strip as it gets eaten by the scanner. > > Went back to 7.0 and the scanner works fine, but Vuescan can't get rid > of the scratches . > > Yuri.
Re: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
Did you check his web page. Dale - Original Message - From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Film Scanners News Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:01 AM Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ? > Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. > > Sincerely. > > Ezio
filmscanners: Printdpi
The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The prints look good. I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Comments? Rich
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
Derek wrote:
>I've just built my current most powerful box with a RAID 10 array of four
30 Gig drives , giving 60 Gig of reliable storage for £450 which is
comparable to the cost of just one smaller SCSI disc.
Whoosh! Now *there's* a Power User! How does it work, Derek? ("he said,
drooling!" :-) )
Best regards--LRA
---
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
--- You wrote: Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me. --- end of quote --- Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required? Rich
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing
Rob wrote: >... most people (if not everyone) scans a source file at 2700dpi (or whatever their maximum optical scanner resolution is) and change the output dpi later in Photoshop or whatever editor they use. For people merely documenting a roll of film or a box of slides (which presupposes not being *super-critical* of the output other than that the black/white points are fairly stable), using a lower scan resolution (1350 to 300, in reverse order) is much faster. This, of course, is the "Exception that proves the Rule." Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
--Original Message-- From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Film Scanners News Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: March 29, 2001 8:01:20 AM GMT Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ? >Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. >Sincerely. >Ezio It's [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or was, 3 weeks ago. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: memory for film scanning
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:02:24 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Rather than start another thread which could be viewed > as of little connection with actual scanning, please > respond off the list Thankyou Rob. You said it for me. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:11 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > FYI last night I tried my first A3 (not A3+) print from a 2700dpi scan. > The image was scanned from 100ASA print film with a Nikon LS30. The result > is good, but perhaps not as sharp as I'd like - but for a real test I'll > have to do an A3 print from a Provia 100F image. Printing at A3 is a *lot* of enlargement for 35mm, by whatever route. Familiarity with darkroom-made prints from various films, of images made under different circumstances and with different lenses, is probably advisable to establish a realistic benchmark of expectations. It would be quite easy to go chasing phantoms... Not saying you are, or haven't the experience, only that it's a good idea. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:26:12 +0100 Dicky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Which version of Unix would that be then. I am trying to suppress OT threads, as you and others have asked... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well. But > apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S. >From discussion here, the 2740 is the exact same scanner as the 2720, but with IR dust elimination tacked on as an extra channel, which requires an extra pass, and is not as effective as Nikon/Minolta's implementation. And slower. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration
This why I use the Fuji emulsions... REALA in 35mm and NPS/NPL in 4x5... I shoot in mixed light (daylight/tungsten/flourescent) with NO FILTERS and get great results... I've been the gels/flourescent filters/this and that route... that's the problem with trannies on interiors... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:04:01 +0100 Michael Wilkinson > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > If you are working quickly its almost impossible to use gels unless > > you've used the location before. > > Specially if it's flourescents ;). However, then it's difficult to see the v/f > image. > > > The drawback to any on camera colour correction though is that in mixed > > lighting you can only correct for one source. > > Quite. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & > comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
>From the following article, grain aliasing will be worse on a lower resolution scanner. http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm Julie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much > every other neg film I've tried. Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one time, and had no problems with grain aliasing. I rather assumed an LS30 would behave similarly. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my Epson 740 Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: > In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is > available on their various national web sites. > > But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as > photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, > but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, > even one sheet at a time. > > If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting > or even laminating? >
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:39:18 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I meant it only in the context of what you seemed to imply ... VS > offering only trismuthus matrix tranformations. It is apparently something > quite rigorous to impliment and tranform 3-dimensional LUT-type device > profiles. I believe Ed would have to license the Adobe or Kodak rendering > engines to offer this. Yes, I think you're correct, which is why he avoids a LUT I daresay. I can't take this discussion much further as I'm not sufficiently au fait with what Ed does or claims, or the more esoteric aspects of ICC derivation. > As you noted I expect a lot for $40 ... but not really ... I only want > an understanding of Ed's implimentations, and strive for clearing up any > confusions. For example ... to ask for AdobeRGB from VS, and then see the > image in VS's window is terribly confusing ... that is, until you understand > why. Well, yes, it is if it matters to you that the window should bear much relation to what eventually emerges in PS. There's evidently scope for handling things better there, and AFAIK VS makes no attempt at accurate, ICM display. Personally this doesn't matter one bit to me, as I use VS only to acquire a 16bit scan I can deal with in PS - but if you want corrected, 8 bit scans, yes, it's a problem. I think that we have to bear in mind where it started from, as a standalone scanning prog for the Photosmart only, pre ICM. There's a good case for a rewrite as a PS plugin, and another good case for proper ICM implementation, but that would probably lock out a majority of users who cannot afford the level of expense involved in this degree of obsessive behaviour. This might be a plea for a VS Pro version, if the market is really there. But it may well not be. I think if you add up the costs of mid-high prosumer scanning and dig imaging, it is truly scary. I expect most people who have and use PS have thrown $3-10,000 at their entire system incl. scanner, s/w, computer, printer. Then there's consumables and endless upgrades. I doubt many people get away with spending less than $2-3000/year, one way and another - and that's on top of cameras, F&P, etc. Even if you do this for a living, clients don't want to pay any extra and there's the added problem of ignorance messing up results, which makes them even more reluctant. I have mailed Ed and asked that he consider returning as I think there's some useful VS-related stuff happening here now. And I intend stamping my feet a bit harder WRT OT discussions. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
This last msg recalls something from my WWII childhood: "Is this trip really necessary?" No offense intended, and best regards--LRA >Did you check his web page. >> Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
> The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson > printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. > > My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then > move it to a > default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for > sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full > resolution file. The > prints look good. > > I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. > I'm wondering > if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a > lower dpi. > Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There > must be an > ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a > minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Well, it depends on really what your needs are. If your output size is limited, then perhaps you can scan at a lower DPI and you will not see a difference in output. I believe you should always acan at the scanner optical resolution, as this will give you the best image your scanner can give you. I do not re-sample in PS, unless the output resolution falls below 180DPI or so...I uncheck the resample box, and just re-size and let the DPI fall where it may. It has been shown time and time again that there is no magic DPI. Now, your comment on file sizes is completely valid, and that is something I would suggest you experiment with to see what gives you the best results with that compromise, since making a scan at other than the scanner optical resolution will degrade the image. You will always get image degradation scanning at other than the optical DPI of the scanner. In small enough printouts, you will not see this degradation though, so if your requirements are such, that may work fine for you.
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
The general consensus is printing in the range of 240-360dpi, and it will depend on the paper - for a good explanation of why see http://www.scantips.com/ The best thing to do is to experiment on *your* printer and find the optimal dpi for each type of paper you generally use. I did that for my HP PhotoSmart just the other day on HP glossy, and found that 240dpi appeared the best. Maris - Original Message - From: "Richard Starr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi | The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson | printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. | | My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a | default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for | sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The | prints look good. | | I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering | if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. | Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an | ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a | minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. | | Comments? | Rich
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
That's my understanding, too. But I note that in the Help files the 2720S is listed but the 2740S is not - why is that? There was a message on the comp.periphs.scanners group that the 2740S was not supported - I have no information as to the reliability of the sender of that message. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit | On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. | ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | | > Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well. But | > apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S. | | From discussion here, the 2740 is the exact same scanner as the 2720, but with | IR dust elimination tacked on as an extra channel, which requires an extra | pass, and is not as effective as Nikon/Minolta's implementation. And slower. | | Regards | | Tony Sleep | http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & | comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
Tony writes ... > The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, > scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the > production of the Crop file, munges that against > his characterisation and the result is a scan > with altered data values within Vuescan's working > space (which I previously said I thought was maybe > sRGB, but as has been pointed out it ain't, > it's Kodak's PCD space - > ... That's more comforting. For taking a raw scan, from any scanner, and into the variety of color spaces Vuescan offers, I assume Ed is assuming (1) a specific scanner may have the potential for delivering a wide gamut of color ... (2) a transform from that gamut to any internal color space can squash that gamut, and you'll never get it back. That being said, and altho I trust Ed, I know little about PCD RGB, and there seems to be little available regarding comparisons with the common working spaces (if comparisons can be made ... some of what I've found would imply apples and oranges). I will assume, until I realize otherwise, VS's internal space is sufficient for 1 & 2. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
Jim, I noticed I get "better looking" results scanning my Kodak Supra 400 with Generic Neg setting. Info posted on another thread indicates that Vuescan attempts to make all neg films "accurate" to a Kodak target, which seems to me would make all different types of neg film look alike. So, you might want to experiment using different Neg settings or generic. Also note color balance notes on Neutral vs. White balance etc. I guess it depends on the subject matter, ie skin tones or scenic. Jon __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Hi all: I have found that I get a better transition from scan to PS to print using Vuescan, PS and Hammermill Jet Print Ultra Glossy and Epson's Matte papers. Hammermill's glossy is a bit heavier than Epsons. I do not know if this applies to those out of the US. Gordon Michael Moore wrote: > Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my > Epson 740 > > Mike M. > > Derek Clarke wrote: > > > In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is > > available on their various national web sites. > > > > But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as > > photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, > > but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, > > even one sheet at a time. > > > > If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting > > or even laminating? > >
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan 4000ED Review
Here are some conclusions regarding Nikon ED 4000. and 3 weeks try out. Sharpness, resolution: There is a problem with the film holders and flatness of the film. No film are exactly flat, and ED 4000 overall sharpness are not good because of curved film.. If the auto focus or manual focus are selected in the middle of the picture there is a excellent sharpness there but not out in the corner. With a test slide in a glass frame the sharpness is excellent all over the picture. It looks like the scanner lens are to open in aperture and lacking depth of field. ( There is the same problem with LS2000 sharpness and film holders.) What is the benefit of 4000 ppi scanner when the scanner not are giving a100% sharp picture? ( test your own film scanner by mowing the selected focus area from the middle and out 2/3 against the side or corner of the film) Scan and compare the sharpness in the middle and corner of the 2 pictures. 2. Regarding colors: Neutral in colors and free from noise. The software NikonScan 3.0 are not optimized yet. Slow in scanning, slow in transferring data to the disk, and do not work well with Photoshop 6.0 as a plugin. ( MAC) All the new features in NikoScan 3.0 as ROC. GEM. are working well but are also very slow. 3 Nikon ED4000 and NikonScan 3.0 will be a very good scanner combination when everything is optimized and the problem with curved film in the film holders and depht of field are solved. Hope you understand my Swedish English Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden >From: Collin Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan 4000ED Review >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:40:37 -0800 (PST) > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/nikon_coolscan4000.html > >The review is not an experienced user of filmscanners so he spends most of >his words running down the features and tech of the scanner instead of >the stuff people on this list would want to know, like grain aliasing, >resolution, noise, etc. He also focuses alot on the ASF technologies and >provides some good examples of ICE and ROC restoration of some really bad >negs. > > _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
filmscanners: TOtally OT: re copyrights
< Since this post is mostly "FYI" coupled with a short "editorial," feel free to delete at any time. ;-) > A news item of passing interest appears in March 2001 "Art in America" (last page). It seems that pop artist Barbara Kruger is being sued for copyright infringement by German photographer Thomas Hoepker, and (in a seperate suit), for invasion of privacy by Hoepker's model, Charolette Dabney, in US District Court, New York City. For those not familiar with Kruger's paintings, she often takes clips from 1950-60s magazines and blows them up directly, half-tone dots and all, to 3'x6' proportions ala Warhol/Lichtenstein, adding clever political comments of her own (usually of a feminist persuasion). Her work is interesting, well-done, amusing and thought-provoking, although probably more so as "political commentary" than as "art" with capital letters. Kruger's defense lawyers are arguing a "lapsed copyright" rather than the still-hazy "fair use" doctrine, so the case will have little if any implications on the latter issue. Seems that the copyright had run when Kruger picked up the clip, and was then arguably in the public domain, but the copyright was renewed before she finished and exhibited her painting in 1990; so almost any decision by the courts could result in further muddying of the waters, and "bad law" in general. The defense has, naturally, moved for dismissal on grounds the case has no merit. While I know that many members of Filmscanners are photographers and probably take a dim view of someone making paintings of their published pictures, it's my thought that only an idiot or a lawyer could try to make the case that a painting, done in oil, enlarged to the point of caricature and further enhanced by the artist, would constitute a "reproduction" in any commonly-understood meaning of the word. In fact, if I were Herr Hoepker (which I am not, BTW), I'd be secretly pleased that a painting based on my photo appeared in a New York gallery, and would be suing for Photo Credit and a small piece of the action, not copyright infringement! A small matter, to be sure, but a nice ego trip. :-) Anyway, that's my take on it. If anyone wants to comment, it would be best to take it off-list (not you, Laurie--we've already covered that ground! ;-) ). Best regards--LR --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
Richard wrote: > Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if it isn't supplied with Mac software? Would Vuescan be required? Vuescan should work. Also call Acer Customer Service and ask if a Mac driver is available. (1-800-452-2237 in the US--don't be surprised if the person you talk to doesn't know much). They also have a website. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
filmscanners: Grain aliasing (was:Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
Julie wrote: >From the following article, grain aliasing will be worse on a lower resolution scanner. >http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm That seems to be true from my experience--either worse or not much affected. Be that as it may, when *dealing* with it, PS's Despeckle filter does a much better job at lower resolutions (that is, re-sizing from a 2700ppi image after basic spotting and color correction). Been doing that for the last few days--the program seems to get a better handle on the "clumps" that way. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
- Original Message - From: Richard Starr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi > The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson > printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. > > My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a > default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for > sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The > prints look good. You would do better to use image>duplicate and image>size. Start by unchecking the resample box, and setting desired print size (actual print size, not paper size). If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and a good number would recommend at least 200ppi. Bob Wright > > I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering > if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. > Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an > ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a > minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. > > Comments? > Rich >
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
Jon - Thanks It's one more thing I'll try... This stuff has about *a million* degrees of freedom, and in the end, I'm still working with something that's subjective. I'm afraid I may have been a bit too lazy so far. It's not going to work though - the canned solution isn't going to satisfy me. Are you happy shooting Supra? I've been using some Royal Gold, mostly 100 speed and I like it. I heard the two films were for all intents and purposes the same film, but I have no way to prove it. The skin tones from the automated prints I've gotten back from the RG weren't too good, but the ones I scanned myself are much better. I've been told by everyone that if I'm shooting people and looking for good skin tones tones I should be shooting Portra, but I really don't want to fool with the refrigeration issue, and I like how sharp the RG is. -- Jim >Jim, I noticed I get "better looking" results scanning my Kodak Supra >400 with Generic Neg setting. Info posted on another thread indicates >that Vuescan attempts to make all neg films "accurate" to a Kodak >target, which seems to me would make all different types of neg film >look alike. So, you might want to experiment using different Neg >settings or generic. Also note color balance notes on Neutral vs. White >balance etc. I guess it depends on the subject matter, ie skin tones or >scenic. > >Jon > > > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text >
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
On 29 Mar 2001, Richard Starr wrote: > --- You wrote: > Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me. > --- end of quote --- > Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if > it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required? I have used the Acer Scanwit 2720S on a blue/white PowerMac G3 using VueScan to control the scanner. It worked perfectly. No idea on the 2740 though. Collin
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
Austin's pretty much right, here, but I haven't seen much of the degradation he talks about in re-sampling, although I know it *has* to exist, given the nature of the beast. I would add that you should choose an optimum file-size based both on the ultimate end use and the finished size of the output. For example, I found that a 900-pixel maxdim file makes a good 4x6" printout @ 250dpi, and a decent (though improvable) 8x10" printout. By JPEGing, I can get files down to 100KB or less with relative ease. If your needs were more critical (say for magazine repros or later retouching), a higher-res TIF or such would be better. You'd be surprised how little space they actually take up on a 650MB CD disc, and discs don't cost that much, even if you insist on good ones (and you should). For resizing/resampling, Micrografx Picture Publisher 8 is an excellent program, IMO, better and more controlable than Photoshop, particularly for JPEGs. If you have size constraints, that's the one to use. OTOH, I might have read your question completely wrong. :-) Best regards--LRA == > The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson > printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. > > My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then > move it to a > default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for > sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full > resolution file. The > prints look good. > > I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. > I'm wondering > if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a > lower dpi. > Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There > must be an > ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a > minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Well, it depends on really what your needs are. If your output size is limited, then perhaps you can scan at a lower DPI and you will not see a difference in output. I believe you should always acan at the scanner optical resolution, as this will give you the best image your scanner can give you. I do not re-sample in PS, unless the output resolution falls below 180DPI or so...I uncheck the resample box, and just re-size and let the DPI fall where it may. It has been shown time and time again that there is no magic DPI. Now, your comment on file sizes is completely valid, and that is something I would suggest you experiment with to see what gives you the best results with that compromise, since making a scan at other than the scanner optical resolution will degrade the image. You will always get image degradation scanning at other than the optical DPI of the scanner. In small enough printouts, you will not see this degradation though, so if your requirements are such, that may work fine for you. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
Quite sojust carring out a "quality of service" check that's all. Richard Corbett - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long) > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:26:12 +0100 Dicky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > Which version of Unix would that be then. > > I am trying to suppress OT threads, as you and others have asked... > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & > comparisons
RE: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Jeanne, Thanks for the response. It turns out the scanner was shipped from Microtek with the SCSI ID set to 9. When it was changed to a normal 1 through 6 it worked fine. I think 9 is a test position. David -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my Epson 740 Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: > In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is > available on their various national web sites. > > But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as > photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, > but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, > even one sheet at a time. > > If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting > or even laminating? >
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
Jon wrote: >Jim, I noticed I get "better looking" results scanning my Kodak Supra 400 with Generic Neg setting. Info posted on another thread indicates that Vuescan attempts to make all neg films "accurate" to a Kodak target, which seems to me would make all different types of neg film look alike. So, you might want to experiment using different Neg settings or generic. Also note color balance notes on Neutral vs. White balance etc. I guess it depends on the subject matter, ie skin tones or scenic. . It definitely seems to, and on time of day, and different processing batches from one roll to another too, at least in my film. I often run through "several" VS color-filters before getting close (closer?) to the target on problem negs. Bless Ed for having them! :-) If it weren't for his "smart programming," I'd 'of *quit* this stuff, months ago! Best regards--LRA __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS using PhotoCD "space". 1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile to profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I have about 8 of them in my ColorSync folder. 2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, and any use thereof would require a license. 3. If you examine each PhotoCD ICC profile, you will see a number of CLUT listing, and the sources are labeled "secret". That word. Each 16 bit profile has about 8 listings, all "secret" - - or proprietary. This is NOT the case if you examine Kodak's ProPhotoRGB space - for example. 4. You can open a PhotoCD - or a PictureCD using Kodak's embedded profiles, or can use one of the other Kodak CD profiles in your ICC profile bank, but you cannot save to PhotoCD, meaning you cannot embed (or format) Kodak's space. 5. If VS uses PhotoCD, what is he (Ed) using for tables, if the CLUTS are proprietary? And anyway, what good does it do in this case? I really wonder if this is fact that he is "assuming a space", and he thinks that space looks like a PhotoCD space. In an (off-list) correspondence with me Ed championed sRGB The sRGB profile consists of about 16 data points. That's it. A synthetic space meant for video and graphics on the web. 6. The scanner has its own RGB color response, usually evidenced by its profile. The profile merely maps the scanner's RGB data in a way consistent with the scanner capabilities, and therefore does not try to "remap" into a space either smaller or larger, or distorted, from the scanner response. Therefore what you get in Photoshop is "undistorted" RGB values, as delivered by the scanner. Most modern scanners have RGB responses far in excess of the media they scan, including E6, or Ektachrome, the media generally acknowledged to have the widest color gamut. In fact, the Nikon LS1000 has a gamut,or color response that well exceeds Ekta Space; the Imacon is way, way out there. Anyway, the scanner profile neither adds or subtracts from its intrinsic gamut. 7. If a profile is not used by VS, you have what is called "raw data", meaning as is, and not mapped. That is, if Ed isn't "remapping" in the background that you don't know about. And, even if the scanner profile is applied, that RGB will not budge from the untagged values. This is because the profile merely maps out what the scanner is doing in the first place. 8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut profiles, in either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. The are all complex. The only thing you can say is that they universally fit within Kodak ProPhotoRGB space. I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - - unless for PR reasons. 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much distortion has been introduced from "real" values. The image comes to you as untagged. If you apply a profile in VS, then the image should come to you as "Tagged", and you should see that (ICC profile) in Photoshop. Without this requirement, or data trail, you are in never never land regarding the fidelity of the original image. You might be bridging into touchy, unsafe waters by forcing out clarity on this issue - - Ed has a useful product to many on this list. And a good product to many. Better not lift the lid too much to look underneath. >Tony writes ... > >> The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, >> scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the >> production of the Crop file, munges that against >> his characterisation and the result is a scan >> with altered data values within Vuescan's working >> space (which I previously said I thought was maybe >> sRGB, but as has been pointed out it ain't, >> it's Kodak's PCD space - >> ... > > That's more comforting. For taking a raw scan, from any scanner, and >into the variety of color spaces Vuescan offers, I assume Ed is >assuming (1) a specific scanner may have the potential for delivering >a wide gamut of color ... (2) a transform from that gamut to any >internal color space can squash that gamut, and you'll never get it >back. > > That being said, and altho I trust Ed, I know little about PCD RGB, >and there seems to be little available regarding comparisons with the >common working spaces (if comparisons can be made ... some of what >I've found would imply apples and oranges). I will assume, until I >realize otherwise, VS's internal space is sufficient for 1 & 2. > >shAf :o)
filmscanners: PhotoCD format
This was discussed about a year ago. There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can convert to the proprietary PhotoCD format: http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html Larry >There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS using >PhotoCD "space". > >1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile to >profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I have about >8 of them in my ColorSync folder. > >2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, and any use >thereof would require a license. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
Tony wrote: >Printing at A3 is a *lot* of enlargement for 35mm, by whatever route. For "professional" resolution images, I agree. But I have 50x70cm poster prints at home which I'm quite happy with. It all depends - as you mention - on your expectations. >Not saying you are, or haven't the experience, only that it's a good idea. Quite right. I printed a Velvia scan last night and the sharpness is fabulous. I just need to reprint it with the OEM profile because the Wiziwyg one really mucked up the colours. (should have done a test print but I was trying to do too many things at once) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing
Lynn wrote: >For people merely documenting a roll of film or a box of slides (which >presupposes not being *super-critical* of the output other than that the >black/white points are fairly stable), using a lower scan resolution (1350 >to 300, in reverse order) is much faster. Especially with APS - my recent experience with APS and bulk scanning almost convinced me to make my next compact camera an APS one. Being able to put the film in the scanner and press a button before walking away to leave the scanner to scan the entire film is just wonderful. Oh how I wish I could do this with my 35mm films! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: PhotoCD format
Larry wrote: >This was discussed about a year ago. >There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can convert >to the proprietary PhotoCD format: >http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html And it works, too! However, bear in mind that PCD is NOT a lossless format like TIFF. The loss is probably not noticeable in practice, but it's worth bearing in mind. I don't think GWP can handle PhotoCD Pro format. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
Tony wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty >> much every other neg film I've tried. > Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one > time, and had no problems with grain aliasing. I rather assumed > an LS30 would behave similarly. I think there may be an issue here with what is "apparent grain" and what is "real grain" and what is "grain aliasing". In any case, I have yet to find a neg film which *doesn't* show unacceptable amounts of "grain" in things like blue sky, while pretty much *every* slide film gives reasonable results. A frame from Velvia last night made an absolutely stunning print on Heavyweight Matte. Changed my mind about photo prints on matte paper! I think I just have to accept the limitations of neg film, in that the greater exposure latitude is at the cost of much more grain. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
Richard wrote: >The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson >printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben list. It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
Richard writes ... > There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD > "space", and VS using PhotoCD "space". > > 1. You will note that you cannot do a profile > conversion (profile to profile) in Photoshop ... > > 2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE > proprietary, ... > > 3. If you examine each PhotoCD ICC profile, you will see a > number of CLUT listing, and the sources are labeled > "secret". That word. ... > > 4. You can open a PhotoCD - ... you cannot > embed (or format) Kodak's space. Probably the reason I found so little info regarding the color capacity of PhotoCD space when I visited Kodak this morning ... plent of info, yes ... but nothing to relate it in terms we use in the normal context of profiles. Still, the transforms were easily downloaded, and I didn't have to sign or accept anything. Presumably Ed knows what he's doing, has permission, and simply anything remotely associated with embedding PCD RGB. > 5. If VS uses PhotoCD, what is he (Ed) using for tables, > if the CLUTS are proprietary? > ... In an (off-list) correspondence with me Ed > championed sRGB ... I cannot imagine he is using sRGB as an intermediate color space ... it would then make any sense to offer other color spaces as sRGB is the smallest. Someone will simply have to ask him. > 6. The scanner has its own RGB color response, ... > Most modernscanners have RGB responses far in excess > of the media they scan, ... > ... In fact, the Nikon LS1000 has a gamut,or > color response that well exceeds Ekta Space; ... Interesting! PS6 allows for rough comparisons of the LUT-type profiles included with the LS-2000. "Nikon_wide" was only a bit bigger than Ektaspace (if you can believe the trismusthus intercept PS6 calculates being a fair comparison). According to Bruce Fraser, PCD RGB isn't much larger either, but definitely large enough to not clip scanner space (debatably), and to offer lossless conversions to most working spaces (the exception being ProPhoto, which according to Bruce is quite a bit larger than PCD RGB) > 7. ... > > 8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut > profiles, in either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. > The are all complex. ... > I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - - > unless for PR reasons. When you say "all the PCD profiles", wouldn't Ed simply be using the most appropriate one. And, wouldn't this one offer a standard model for mathematically converting to & from??? > 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters > the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting > image - you never know how much distortion > has been introduced from "real" values. After looking into it only a little bit, I came away believing PCD RGB is sufficiently large and well defined to be used as an intermediate space. Vuescan does tag the images it exports in a variety of working spaces (including ProPhoto and Ektaspace), the only offering it doesn't tag is "device RGB" ... and it should be easy to see if it is anything remotely resembling sRGB. I'm quite curious ... I would ask VS for an sRGB image, and Ektaspace image, and the "device RGB" image. Depending on which resembled which, as you assigned the working space to dRGB with PS6, it should be obvious. shAf :o)
filmscanners: OT: Photoshop LE
This is a "rant," so delete now if you've heard it before. ;-) I've just reverted to PS-5.0-LE--partly because a bigger PS was giving me problems, and partly to see "What are the Peasants, Doing, Tonight?" (bad joke, I admit--it needs the music). :-) Someone, a few months ago said PS-LE was a P.I.T.A.--oh, wait, that was me! But that was only after I'd just come off more friendly graphic programs on another machine which I've promised never to mention again. Well guess what: it still is! I doubt very seriously if anybody from Adobe is monitoring this channel. That's not like them, unfortunately (as opposed to *some* who regularly do, and you know who you are, and thank you). I also guess that if I could regularly sell upgrades and programs for $500 to $700 a pop after practically giving away "clipped" versions, I would surely do that, too. I might be a rotten businessman, but I'm not *that* stupid! ;-) OTOH, there's the little matter of Volume vs. Profits. It's like the kid who was imploring people to buy his pencils: "Hey, mister, would you buy a pencil to help put me through college? They're only $20,000!" "That seems a little expensive for a pencil," sez the well-dressed man. "Yeah," sez the kid, "but I only have to sell ONE!" It's an old joke, so I s'pose the price of the pencils has gone up to $60,000 ($150,000 if the kid wants to go to Harvard), but I guess I've made my point and I'll shutup now. Too bad no Adobe people make themselves evident on this list, because that's who the story is for. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
>8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut profiles, in >either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. The are all complex. The only thing >you can say is that they universally fit within Kodak ProPhotoRGB >space. I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - - >unless for PR reasons. I recall a long time back he said he was deriving some part of his film type correction curves or matrix data from film type data from Kodak for PhotoCDs. >9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, >and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much >distortion has been introduced from "real" values. The image comes to >you as untagged. If you apply a profile in VS, then the image should >come to you as "Tagged", and you should see that (ICC profile) in >Photoshop. Without this requirement, or data trail, you are in never >never land regarding the fidelity of the original image. Vuescan has an option to tag files with the selected color space profile (except for Device RGB, which according to the help file "doesn't embed any ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files..."). The embedded profile is recognized by Photoshop (at least it is in my config). ProPhoto RGB is one of the color spaces Vuescan offers for file output. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: PhotoCD format
There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to PhotoCD foramt. If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news to me. I think what you are trying to tell me is that I can cut my own Photo CDs. Right? Including the Master or Pro PhotoCD? Go to any graphic program - at least on the Mac side. None offer WRITING to the Photo CD format, OR embedding PhotoCD profiles. Check Photoshop, for example. In the example (URL) mentioned, where does it say you can write PhotoCD format? I can't download this program. PC only. Try it, and see what happens. Plus, I know of custom labs who are paying the royalty/licensing fees for using it. They get good money to write to this format. Nobody else can use it, unless they license . Again, >This was discussed about a year ago. > >There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can >convert to the proprietary PhotoCD format: >http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html > >Larry > >>There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and >>VS using PhotoCD "space". >> >>1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile >>to profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I >>have about 8 of them in my ColorSync folder. >> >>2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, and >>any use thereof would require a license. > > >*** >Larry Berman > >http://BermanGraphics.com >http://IRDreams.com >http://ImageCompress.com > >***
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi & A3 from 2720
Having just experimented with print resolutions using a very sharp Kodachrome 25 with lots of fine detail, I would agree with Bob's figures. I found that I could push the print resolution down to 140 dpi before I began to detect a noticeable difference in the prints when viewed at about 30cm (12"). (That indicates a good 25" x 17" print! is quite possible from a 2720 dpi scanner :), but by crikey your original needs to be spot on!) If you want the images to stand closer inspection, then 200 dpi is usually enough. There is very little difference (for naked eye viewing) above this, but it *does* depend on the subject, and I guess, your eyesight! Try it yourself.. And to answer the other enquiry - print times are dependent on your *printer* resolution setting, eg a 1440 dpi printout will take much longer than a 720 dpi one. Changing the image resolution will not help here. I suggest you stick to the highest printer resolution for the paper in use - at lower figures you get much worse dithering effects, esp. on a 4-colour inkjet printer.. Mark T. At 10:46 AM 29/03/01 -0800, Bob wrote: >If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the >minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and >a good number would recommend at least 200ppi.
Re: filmscanners: PhotoCD format
Graphics Workshop Professional can write the Kodak PhotoCD format, as I previously posted. From the FAQ page on the web site http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwsproqa.html Q: Graphic Workshop Professional can write PCD files. Does this mean it can create complete Kodak PhotoCDs? A: Sadly, no. While Kodak has licensed us the technology to create PCD files a useful format for high quality imaging they have thus far refused to disclose the details of the other bits required to create a complete Kodak PhotoCD which would be readable by Kodak's set-top players. They seem to want to keep this facility for their own authoring packages. Graphic Workshop Professional can create multiple-resolution PCD files which are effectively identical to those created for a commercial PhotoCD. If you write these to a CD-ROM using the directory structure of a Photo-CD as discussed in the Reference document for Graphic Workshop you'll have a pseudo-PhotoCD readable by most PC-based applications, such as Graphic Workshop Professional itself. We're still working on the rest of the PhotoCD standard, but at the moment, this is as good as it gets. you wrote: >There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open >PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to >PhotoCD foramt. If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news to me. > >I think what you are trying to tell me is that I can cut my own Photo CDs. >Right? Including the Master or Pro PhotoCD? > >Go to any graphic program - at least on the Mac side. None offer WRITING >to the Photo CD format, OR embedding PhotoCD profiles. Check Photoshop, >for example. > >In the example (URL) mentioned, where does it say you can write PhotoCD >format? I can't download this program. PC only. Try it, and see what happens. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: PhotoCD format
Richard wrote: >There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open >PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to >PhotoCD foramt. Graphic Workshop Profesional does. > If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news > to me. They released a toolkit for software development a couple of years ago. AFAIK it only supports writing to standard PCD not Pro PCD. I was tempted to buy it myself and build a program to save in PCD format until I found out that it was lossy. > I think what you are trying to tell me is that I can cut > my own Photo CDs. Right? Kind of - you could certainly make a CDR with a bunch of PCD files on it. Proprietary PhotoCD readers probably wouldn't work unless you figured out the rest of the Kodak PCD disk format. But most picture editing software can read PCD files, so it's not a problem. > Including the Master or Pro PhotoCD? See above. >Go to any graphic program - at least on the Mac side. I don't know of a Mac program which can write PCD. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: File format
Did any one knows whether is there any informations/details loses when store in compressed JPG format in maximum quality 10 and while you keep opening and saving the same file many times? And how about the raw file TIFF? Thanks. HT Tin
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
>I think there may be an issue here with what is "apparent grain" and what >is "real grain" and what is "grain aliasing". In any case, I have yet to >find a neg film which *doesn't* show unacceptable amounts of "grain" in >things like blue sky, while pretty much *every* slide film gives reasonable >results. I think what you may have here derives in part from the sky and other nominally bright parts of images on negatives being the darkest -- most dense -- in the film. So sky in negs can be more difficult and show grain and/or noise much like dark shadow areas of slides are the difficult parts to scan and image.
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
I guess you will have to ask him exactly what he is using. The discussion was about PhotoCD embedded profiles. Not standard spaces, such as AdobeRGB. The "Transforms" you can download from Kodak - ASFICT are profiles, used to open files formatted in PhotoCD format. For opening files only. But you cannot open an image which is tagged in ColorMatchRGB, or AdobeRGB (say - scanned with VS and selecting one of these spaces), and then convert the *embedded* profile to PhotoCD profile, and then save to PhotoCD format. Even PictureCD. Such that when you open the file again, the profile (as denoted in Photoshop window - at bottom) will say "pcdcnycc"," pcdekycc", "pcd4050e", ", pcd4050k", or about 4 others that start with "pcd-". These are the Kodak PhotoCD profiles that are invoked when you open a PhotoCD file on a disk provided by a licensed service provider. These files, by definition of the PhotoCD format, come in at least six resolutions, depending on whether or not the file is "Pro", "Master", "Picture" - - . But at no time does the format permit only one saved file - as was implied by another poster. And, you can't even do this unless you are licensed, and are provided authoring software included in the license from Kodak. As mentioned before, the CLUT definitions are proprietary. And, you can't open a file into "photoCD space", You cannot load any of the profiles mentioned above as a working "space". If Ed is "doing this" - somehow - he is not doing this without Kodak's permission, unless he is licensed and has obtained proprietary authoring software. But even then, Kodak would take a dim view of anybody mucking around with their technology, that they invested so heavily into. They would have to insist that all licensees conform to standards agreed upon in the licence contract. > >I recall a long time back he said he was deriving some part of his >film type correction curves or matrix data from film type data from >Kodak for PhotoCDs. > >>9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, >>and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much >>distortion has been introduced from "real" values. The image comes to >>you as untagged. If you apply a profile in VS, then the image should >>come to you as "Tagged", and you should see that (ICC profile) in >>Photoshop. Without this requirement, or data trail, you are in never >>never land regarding the fidelity of the original image. > >Vuescan has an option to tag files with the selected color space >profile (except for Device RGB, which according to the help file >"doesn't embed any ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files..."). >The embedded profile is recognized by Photoshop (at least it is in >my config). ProPhoto RGB is one of the color spaces Vuescan offers >for file output. > >-- >Bob Shomler >http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: File format
What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time there would be some generational loss. Store in an uncompressed native format to your graphics program. If you open a jpeg in Photoshop it automatically takes on the characteristics of a PSD. That's why you should save it as a PSD prior to working on it. Then use Photoshop's "Save for the Web" to create your compressed jpeg. Larry >Did any one knows whether is there any informations/details loses when >store in compressed JPG format in maximum quality 10 and while you keep >opening and saving the same file many times? >And how about the raw file TIFF? *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
> > When you say "all the PCD profiles", wouldn't Ed simply be using the >most appropriate one. And, wouldn't this one offer a standard model >for mathematically converting to & from??? They are all different: pcd4050e.pf for E6 pcd4050k.pf for K-14 pcdcnycc.pf for color negative pcdekycc.pf for universal E6 pcdkoycc.pf for universal K-14 I can't tell you which one is used where. I have seen both the "pcd4050e and k" come up. All are Kodak device profiles, and have the ".pf" extension. And, all of them contain text detailing their *Copyright* information. The PhotoCD extension, when opening a PhotoCD file uses the trademark notation, such as IMG0001.PCDÝ . note the "Ý" after the PCD extension. > > 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters > > the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting > > image - you never know how much distortion > > has been introduced from "real" values. > > After looking into it only a little bit, I came away believing PCD >RGB is sufficiently large and well defined to be used as an >intermediate space. Vuescan does tag the images it exports in a >variety of working spaces (including ProPhoto and Ektaspace), the only >offering it doesn't tag is "device RGB" ... and it should be easy to >see if it is anything remotely resembling sRGB. I'm quite curious ... >I would ask VS for an sRGB image, and Ektaspace image, and the "device >RGB" image. Depending on which resembled which, as you assigned the >working space to dRGB with PS6, it should be obvious. Can't use PCD as a space. It is all device specific, the devices being Kodak's proprietary authoring scanners, such as the "Filmscanner 200", a 16 bit scanner, probably leased (but not owned) by the service provider and (probably) included with the license contract. >shAf :o) Yes it is large. It will encompass Ekta Space (almost), which is the definition of E6 Ektachrome media, and thus E6 gamut.
Re: filmscanners: File format
larry wrote: > What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving > the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time > there would be some generational loss. This is only true of lossy compressed formats like jpeg and PCD. > Store in an uncompressed native format to your graphics > program. This is slightly faster, but not actually necessary. You can use a lossless compression. > If you open a jpeg in Photoshop it automatically takes on > the characteristics of a PSD. That's why you should save > it as a PSD prior to working on it. Then use Photoshop's > "Save for the Web" to create your compressed jpeg. Just to paraphrase slightly, the best option is to keep a master copy of the image in a lossless format, and only convert a copy of the image to jpeg at the point when it has been edited to the final requirements. I use LZW compressed TIFF because it is transportable between different editing programs. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
Bob wrote: >I think what you may have here derives in part from the sky and other nominally >bright parts of images on negatives being the darkest -- most dense -- in >the film. So sky in negs can be more difficult and show grain and/or noise >much like dark shadow areas of slides are the difficult parts to scan and >image. I believe that for some reason there is more CCD noise in the blue channel than other channels. It may be that the effect of Nikon's collimated light is more pronounced in the blue channel than elsewhere - certainly shorter wavelengths might show different focus than longer wavelengths. However, the negative has the blue channel inverted doesn't it? :) I'm not hugely concerned about what the source of the effect may be - the fact is that on my LS30, all slide films scan far better in terms of apparent grain than the neg films I've tried. AFAICS slide grain is far more homogenous than neg film - which I presume is also why negs have much more latitude than slides. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Vuescan film characteristic transforms was RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
Richard wrote: >And, you can't open a file into "photoCD space", You cannot load any >of the profiles mentioned above as a working "space". If Ed is "doing >this" - somehow - he is not doing this without Kodak's permission, >unless he is licensed and has obtained proprietary authoring >software. Just to try to keep this a little clearer - Ed has used the freely available data which Kodak provide to define the characteristics of the various films. This film characteristic data is also used by Kodak in their PhotoCD workstations. I am sure that Ed is not doing anything which requires Kodak's permission, nor AFAIK is he truly doing anything which is directly to do with Kodak's proprietary Photo CD technology. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: File format
Only if you change the quality when resaving the .jpg file or if you resample the file in any way prior to resaving the .jpg file even at the same quality level. With .tif files, you will lose information only if you resample the file after opening it and before resaving it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of httin Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:49 PM To: filmscanners Subject: filmscanners: File format Did any one knows whether is there any informations/details loses when store in compressed JPG format in maximum quality 10 and while you keep opening and saving the same file many times? And how about the raw file TIFF? Thanks. HT Tin
RE: filmscanners: File format
>Each time there would be some generational loss. Not necessarily true. If you open and close ( or resave) the compressed file without changing the compression from one quality level to another in the case of .jog or without resampling the image prior to closing or resaving the file, there will be no more degradation than opening and closing or resaving a raw uncompressed file. When you open a compressed file you have uncompressed it, so resaving it with the same compression as before or without engaging in any resampling prior to resaving the file should not result in any additional losses in data or quality. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: File format What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time there would be some generational loss. Store in an uncompressed native format to your graphics program. If you open a jpeg in Photoshop it automatically takes on the characteristics of a PSD. That's why you should save it as a PSD prior to working on it. Then use Photoshop's "Save for the Web" to create your compressed jpeg. Larry >Did any one knows whether is there any informations/details loses when >store in compressed JPG format in maximum quality 10 and while you keep >opening and saving the same file many times? >And how about the raw file TIFF? *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
filmscanners: Bulk scanning
This is the main reason I am considering selling my Sprintscan 4000 and buying a Nikon 4000ED. The ability to drop a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film in and walk away. Does anybody have any experience yet? That's literally the only reason I want to make the switch. I like my Sprintscan a lot. Tom From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Especially with APS - my recent experience with APS and bulk scanning almost > convinced me to make my next compact camera an APS one. Being able to put > the film in the scanner and press a button before walking away to leave > the scanner to scan the entire film is just wonderful. Oh how I wish I > could do this with my 35mm films! > > Rob >
Re: filmscanners: File format
Hi Rob, The original question was asked about repeatedly opening and saving as a jpeg. >larry wrote: > > What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving > > the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time > > there would be some generational loss. > >Rob wrote: This is only true of lossy compressed formats like jpeg and PCD. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
Richard writes ... > Yes it is large. It will encompass Ekta Space (almost), which is the > definition of E6 Ektachrome media, and thus E6 gamut. I'm posting th results of my little test regarding the capacity of Vuescan's gamut, "device RGB" (... whatever it is ...) First ... some prelims ... I scanned an image into sRGB space 1st just for getting the colors approximately correct on my gamma=2.2 monitor ... and then loaded it into Photoshop 6. Next ... I scanned another image, without changing anything, into a wide gamut space, ProphotoRGB (gamma=1.8) ... and loaded it into Photoshop. Both of these "appear" identical, so there is nothing wrong with my monitor compensation. Second ... I scan having chosen "device RGB" which doesn't embed any profile, but is supposed to be Vuescan's color space. I can choose to "assign" any profile to it, and the profile which makes it appear like the others will give us an idea of "Vuescan RGB" color space. If I assign a profile and it appears over-saturated, then VS RGB has a smaller gamut than what I assigned, and vice versa if it appears under-saturated. The result is VS RGB is somewhere inbetween ProPhotoRGB and sRGB, and most like EktaspaceRGB. Unfortunately, VS RGB is a smaller gamut than what Nikon believes belongs to the LS-2000 ... if I assign "Nikon_wide" the over-saturation is obvious. Fortunately, and as Richard stated before (at least with respect to Nikons), the scanner's gamut is designed to exceed that of the media ... so Ektaspace is an easily accepted compromise. Ektaspace is also respected for its editabilty, and its wide gamut is very suitable for highbit editing. Its gamut is also sufficiently wide for archiving. The downside of VS RGB, besides being smaller than some scanners' device spaces, is that it is significantly smaller than "Adobe wide gamut" and ProPhotoRGB. That is, you get nothing by choosing these two color space options ... unless you like a lot of headroom for serious Photoshop adjustments ... but the "beyond gamut" results of such adjustments cannot be seen in monitor space, so what's the use(?) The good news is VS RGB is sufficiently large. No one should complain for lack of gamut ... no matter what the application post scan. It is also sufficiently large for some serious and creative highbit adjustments. On the other hand, if Ed wanted to extend Vuescan's market into professional work, he might want to consider a different internal color space for Vuescan 'Pro'. my US$0.02
RE: filmscanners: File format
This is what I thought, too, but before venturing to say so, I actually performed an experiment, repeatedly saving the JPG file at the same compression factor. It got smaller by about 2% each time I saved it. It is probably honing in on some optimized compression at that level of quality. Visual inspection couldn't detect any degradation. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: File format > > > >Each time there would be some generational loss. > > Not necessarily true. If you open and close ( or resave) the > compressed file > without changing the compression from one quality level to another in the > case of .jog or without resampling the image prior to closing or resaving > the file, there will be no more degradation than opening and closing or > resaving a raw uncompressed file. > > When you open a compressed file you have uncompressed it, so resaving it > with the same compression as before or without engaging in any resampling > prior to resaving the file should not result in any additional losses in > data or quality. >
Re: filmscanners: File format
Just a note on LZW compressed image portability - I have run into one instance where an LZW compressed image was not portable - when exporting a 48-bit compressed TIFF from Vuescan to Corel PhotoPaint 9 it opens but the image is unrecognizable. If exported uncompressed there is no problem, and once in PhotoPaint it can be compressed using LZW. This appears to be one exception. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: File format | larry wrote: | > What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving | > the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time | > there would be some generational loss. | | This is only true of lossy compressed formats like jpeg and PCD. | | > Store in an uncompressed native format to your graphics | > program. | | This is slightly faster, but not actually necessary. | You can use a lossless compression. | | > If you open a jpeg in Photoshop it automatically takes on | > the characteristics of a PSD. That's why you should save | > it as a PSD prior to working on it. Then use Photoshop's | > "Save for the Web" to create your compressed jpeg. | | Just to paraphrase slightly, the best option is to keep | a master copy of the image in a lossless format, and | only convert a copy of the image to jpeg at the point | when it has been edited to the final requirements. | I use LZW compressed TIFF because it is transportable | between different editing programs. | | Rob | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | | |
Re: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:01:20 +0200 Ezio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan. [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's another address in the help file, ISTR. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much > every other neg film I've tried. Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one time, and had no problems with grain aliasing. I rather assumed an LS30 would behave similarly. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:20:11 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > ... Tony seems to be > under the impression, for those scanners which have been chracterized, > Vuescan will transform the scanned RGB data into "device RGB". The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the production of the Crop file, munges that against his characterisation and the result is a scan with altered data values within Vuescan's working space (which I previously said I thought was maybe sRGB, but as has been pointed out it ain't, it's Kodak's PCD space - too many facts, too little brain:). This isn't classical ICC-type colour management (=don't change the data, just append a tag which provides a map for interpretation of device colour). Vuescan does change the data, so you can't go backwards - the original scanner RGB has gone. However you do now have a scan in a known colour space (PCD) which can be mapped and tagged to any other colour space, sRGB, AdobeRGB etc. It's perfectly legitimate, nothing is broken - but you should regard VS internal working space as the device space here. So you don't want to go applying other profiles for the scanner, from other sources, at that stage, as the image is no longer in scanner RGB. >(Tony > ... correct me if I'm wrong ... I think this is what your > 'step-by-step' Vuescan method implied. This implimentation of "device > RGB" makes me itchy, because while it is in Ed's evalutated "device > RGB" space, it is NOT in the same RGB space as implied by a > manufacturer supplied, or 3rd party calibration, device color space. Quite. The whole point of VS is to avoid all that - either because VS does it better (=design aim) or because the OE scanner software doesn't use ICC at all. > To impose (assign) one on top of the other makes me uncomfortable ... It's an either/or proposition; you should never be applying scanner profiles to the Crop file. If you want VS to produce legit, tagged files, corrected for the scanner's deficiencies (and film characterisations too), use the Crop file. If not, use the raw file, or other software, and DIY. > I certainly am more comfortable with the scanned image inheriting the > device space because nothing was done to it (... not implying the > 'raw' scan' because we are still trying to use Vuescan's cropping > tools ...) ...) But VS doesn't implement CM 'properly' - if it did, Ed would have to bundle his scanner characterisations as ICC profiles and he declines to do that as everybody would pinch them and not buy VS. For the same reason, you'll find vanishingly-few PD profiles on the web, and people like Jon Cone making a living by selling them (for Epson piezos). The downside is that this approach locks VS out of using any device profiles you might make yourself for your personal scanner/film combination, to produce the Crop file. However VS still gives you the wherewithawl to create and save a raw scan which you can then work with in PS, using device profiles or anything you like. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
