Re: filmscanners: Insight, Silverfast, VS - was What's MFT
The manual is also available for separate download at Silverfast's website http://www.silverfast.com/english/download/pdfs.html Maris - Original Message - From: "Bud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:24 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Insight, Silverfast, VS - was What's MFT | The Silverfast manual can be accessed from the preview window of Silverfast | then click on the 'question mark.' The manual is a pdf file and is quite | comprehensive. | | - Original Message - | From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:15 AM | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Insight, Silverfast, VS - was What's MFT | | | > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:35:35 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | > | > > However, now I'm trying | > > to figure out how the undocumented Insight and poorly documented | > > Silverfast software works. No one on the list offered to help me | > > figure it out following my last post. | > | > Insight should have a help file, and certainly did, though I don't know if | > that has gone AWOL with later versions supplied on CD. | > | > Silverfast is pretty hard, and I wouldn't try and engage with that unless | > and until you know your way round scanning. Even then, it's far from | > intuitive as it goes way beyond basic scanning functions. | > | > However the real problem with most scanner s/w is that you get no | > education about which adjustments to use for which faults, or even how to | > identify them correctly. I have some sympathy with this : you wouldn't | > expect a car handbook to tell you how the clutch works and when to use it. | > | > It's no help right now, but I am working on addressing this as part of | > website Mk2. | > | > My credibility WRT that must be <0 by now, as it has taken so long. But | > the end of the major diversion - evolution of an equitable subscription | > scheme*** quite unlike anything else on the net - which has delayed it, is | > now in sight. | > | > > Maybe I need to buy Vuscan. | > > (LOL, as they say!) | > | > You don't *need* to, and there's a good case for getting to grips with 8 | > bit scanning using Insight first as its controls are more intuitive. To | > get the best out of VS often requires a different approach, scanning to | > 16bit and carrying out some corrections within PS. Ultimately it is worth | > it, especially with negs, but it may temporarily increase vertigo for | > people who are clinging on to the steep and rocky learning curve by their | > fingernails. Take small steps, breathe deeply, rest often, don't look down | > :) | > | > | > *** I will post a separate msg about this soon, as we need beta testers. | > | > | > Regards | > | > Tony Sleep | > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner | > info & comparisons | > | > |
Re: aliasing was Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
Julian wrote: > I also would like to put a word of support for Nikonscan > here. I use LS2000 and Nikonscan 2.5.1. I have tried > Vuescan but just can't get it to do anything better than > Nikonscan (EXCEPT reduce jaggies) so I continue to use > Nikonscan. There has been a lot of negative discussion > about Nikonscan - I really cannot see why people bag it > so much. My main beef with Nikonscan is the jaggies. Makes it useless for me. Aside from that problem, Nikonscan works very well, and has a far more usable interface for meaningfully adjusting scans than Vuescan. But we've already established that Vuescan's intention is to capture the most data possible and deliver it to Photoshop where it can be edited. > I get predictable output and generally excellent > colour 98% of the time from negs. I don't do much > slides, but they were fine too. When I was using Nikonscan, I did get quite good colour, with the exception of a roll of whale-watching photos. Nikonscan wanted to change the colour of the photos to something virtually B&W because of the dominance of blue in the images. In fairness, the default settings of Vuescan did the same thing (white balance) but the "neutral" settings did not. > I certainly get better results colour-wise than I > could ever get out of Vuescan, and VS was *much* slower. Odd. Vuescan is significantly *faster* on my computer, especially compard to Nikonscan with ICE. I suspect you are also getting significantly better results from Nikonscan since the LS2000 gives you access to the high bit options. The LS30 is restricted to 8 bits in Nikonscan and you have to be careful with adjustments to avoid posterisation. > I do agree that the jaggies is a real problem, and have not > been impressed by the results of my email discussion with > Nikon USA about this. I am about to send mine back for > "repair" re jaggies - I have little hope but will > report how it is dealt with. (remember this is in Australia). I'll be intrigued if Maxwell Optics manage to cure the vibration that causes the jaggies. As far as I can see it's a design fault caused by a combniation of hardware and software behaviour. > IME NIkonscan default auto settings cut off too much at the > high end (and maybe the shadows end too), so I use the > option - Scanner extras / prescan mode / low contrast neutral. If I ever get to use Nikonscan jaggy-free, I'll try this. :) Rob (about to travel south to Canberra) Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Jaggies in passing
I agree entirely, and of course Maxwell's service people said they had never heard of the problem when I phoned them. So I suspect "interesting" will be the main outcome of this exercise! I think my jaggies has got significantly worse with time, which is not surprising if it is a resonance vibration thing, because the vibration amplitude would increase as the feed mechanism wears into more slack, or holding springs soften etc. This means that it is *possible* to fix it though if you try hard enough. Julian At 16:23 10/04/01, Rob wrote: >I'll be intrigued if Maxwell Optics manage to cure the vibration >that causes the jaggies. As far as I can see it's a design >fault caused by a combniation of hardware and software behaviour. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
Richard, I ran into a problem with Photoshop 4.01 on the PC where it posterized badly when I did levels adjustments in 16 bit. The problem did not occur if I worked in 8 bit. It usually happened in midtones going quite dark blue-black. I never printed these so, I have no idea what they would have looked like. However, I was told by some it was probably a graphic/video card driver problem. I had upgraded to the newest version, so I contacted Diamond, my videocard manufacturer. They admitted there were some incompatibilities with the card I had and Photoshop, and suggested I update the card on a trade in basis. On a last attempt, I upgraded to Photoshop 5.0, and magically the problem went away, so it was either a PS and Diamond problem, or a PS only problem, but it's gone now, and I did not replace my videocard or have I upgraded the driver since. I recognize your situation is on a Mac, and I don't know if any of this relates, but obviously PS Version 4 for Windows was buggy. Art Richard Starr wrote: > --- You wrote: > You will be able to chack whether it is the file, or a problem with the > display/graphics system, by viewing the histogram. Contouring shows up as > missing bit values, leaving the histogram looking like a mangy dog's comb. > > What file type is this, and what processing has been done (and by what) en > route to the screen? And what scanner/software? > --- end of quote --- > Thanks for the answers to this. I am still finding my way with my semi-disabled > Nikon 3510AF. Full resolution scans take 15 minutes and correcting the color > misregistration takes 10 more. Until I can afford a modern scanner, I'm still > in the dark ages. The film in one case is either Kodak 1000 negative film or an > 800 negative film from maybe Agfa. Definitley available light material shot in > my little Olympus XA4 (a jewel.) I would have done some curves or gamma > adjustments in Photoshop. Maybe a curves adjustment in the Nikon software for > one of the pictures. > > The odd thing is that the posterization seems to show in the display and not in > the print. This suggests a bug somewhere in the software or hardware. It's > Photoshop 4.0.1 on a SuperMac with an ATI video board and a Sony monitor. It's > all good stuff. > > Still, this Photoshop version is a little buggy, I think. I used to use this > version on a 68000 Mac and it worked better with regard to previews anyway. On > the PPC Mac (it installs as a ppc version)checking and unchecking preview > boxes may or may not affect the display depending on the thing being adjusted. > When the display is previewed, the adjustment affects the whole screen, so the > background becomes magenta or darker or whatever. It's hard to make subtle > judgements that way even if the image fills most of the screen. I don't think > the 68k Mac version did these things. Maybe later versions don't. > > (Holding the mouse down on the drag strip of the control window in many > functions does cause the display to go back to the unpreviewed version in some > of the control windows but not all. This seems to me to be sloppy programming, > probably corrected in later versions. ) > > So given these little probs with Photoshop, maybe there is something that causes > slightly unreliable display. > > Rich
Re: filmscanners: Re: OT Endless Posts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I couldn't have said it better. It seems many posters like to hear > themselves talk and opine. Or debate endlessly like "Well said Joe, but you > know, back in 1969 when I worked for Jet Propulsion Labs, we experimented > with a coating for an airplane wing that is a direct descendant of the dye > and crystal layer of archival CD-R's!" On and On, yada yada yada. > This is the price we pay for the knowledge we receive. And I have just > added meaningless bandwidth to this discussion for adding my .02 cents. > Ed Further, you have been quite dismissive of sometimes interesting, sometimes useful contributions that come from people with longer or wider experience than your own. Those who are ignorant of their history are destined to repeat it. Art
Re: filmscanners: Jaggies in passing
"Julian Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree entirely, and of course Maxwell's service people said they had > never heard of the problem when I phoned them. So I suspect "interesting" > will be the main outcome of this exercise! I look forward to hearing if they can fix the design fault. (one which is fixable in software) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi
Does anyone have any idea why the list seems to periodically repeat posts? :-7 - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:42 AM
Re: aliasing was Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
"Dave King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you mean jaggies are all through the image, or along the edges? The jaggies are through the entire image but are most noticeable on high contrast edges within the image. By "edge" I presume you mean the outer boundary of the entire image. The jaggies are regular slippage of the scan lines in a sawtooth pattern. They are apparently caused by the scanner mechanism moving at a particular speed - one which happens most often when using Nikonscan that scans in 64K blocks. Ed has coded Vuescan to scan line by line with a delay to prevent the vibration that results in the jaggies. If you're lucky enough to have an LS2000 you could probably also eliminate the problem by using the multiscan option since it causes the scanner to scan each line multiple times, slowing the mechanism down. The LS30 doesn't support single pass multiscanning. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD
At 21:13 09-04-01 -0400, you wrote: >Mikael wrote: > > >SilverFast SE . Scanner software . A light version of Silverfast Ai. >Guides the novice user step by step to brilliant images. (Silverfast own >text) - Below is a quote from the Silvefast website and what confuses me is it says Silverfast SE is designed to work wit all major scanners but then goes on to say -currently we offer Se for Epson scanners - so does it work with other scanners ??? Stuart "SilverFast SE is designed to work with all major scanners while SilverFast DC-SE is designed to process data from all digital cameras. Currently we offer SilverFast SE for Epson scanners, and DC-SE for working with images on your local drive."
filmscanners: Blue noise - suggestions for removal?
My apologies in advance to digest readers for the attached image. I've cut it down to 6K to minimise the uuencoded text. The attached photo is the result of a really icky combination of film and light. The film is Kodak 320T tungsten balanced slide film, and I've taken the photo by flash - which is of course daylight balanced... The result is the ugly blue shadows. I've managed to remove most of the colour imbalance from the original slide, but does anyone have any suggestions for removing the blue fringing? Scanned on a Nikon LS30 using Vuescan 7.0.10 with a 4X multipass. Yes I know it's grainy but on this occasion I'm not worried about the grain. :) It's 320 speed slide film after all. Rob
Re: aliasing was Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
> "Dave King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you mean jaggies are all through the image, or along the edges? > > The jaggies are through the entire image but are most noticeable on high > contrast edges within the image. By "edge" I presume you mean the outer > boundary of the entire image. The jaggies are regular slippage of the > scan lines in a sawtooth pattern. They are apparently caused by the > scanner mechanism moving at a particular speed - one which happens > most often when using Nikonscan that scans in 64K blocks. Ed has > coded Vuescan to scan line by line with a delay to prevent the > vibration that results in the jaggies. > > If you're lucky enough to have an LS2000 you could probably also > eliminate the problem by using the multiscan option since it causes > the scanner to scan each line multiple times, slowing the mechanism > down. The LS30 doesn't support single pass multiscanning. > > Rob I asked because I wasn't sure what you referred to. The term "jaggies" is usually used to mean "pixelization", which of course is a problem of too low resolution for a given output size, and it occurs in all digital images at some point. Nikonscan has two artifacts I can see, I believe both related to ICE. One is the "serrated edge" effect caused by scanning film in mounts, and it only occurs at the edges of the frame. The other I'll call "shark's tooth", and it looks like tiny spikes at regular intervals on high contrast edges. I think it only occurs in one direction, going from memory. To be clear what we're talking about, do you mean the tiny spikes? I'm asking for further clarification because from your discription, "regular slippage of the scan lines in a sawtooth pattern through the entire image", I'm not sure my particular scanner suffers from this problem. Dave
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
---Art wrote: I ran into a problem with Photoshop 4.01 on the PC where it posterized badly when I did levels adjustments in 16 bit. The problem did not occur if I worked in 8 bit. It usually happened in midtones going quite dark blue-black. --- end of quote --- Thanks for supporting my notion that there may be a bug in the display driver of my version of PS. In fact, my scans display as though viewed through a screen at most magnifications. It looks like an aliasing between the pixel structure and the monitor resolution, which is about 1050 x 800. This 'screen stucture' doesn't change with changes in magnification. I don't know if this happens at lower resolutions, but this is where I want to be working. Again, the prints are smooth. Rich
Re: filmscanners: Re: OT Endless Posts
In a message dated 04/10/2001 5:11:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Further, you have been quite dismissive of sometimes interesting, sometimes useful contributions that come from people with longer or wider experience than your own. Those who are ignorant of their history are destined to repeat it. Art >> I have not been dismissive of the contributions by you and others. If you read my post, I was agreeing with the original poster that sometimes it gets WAY out. I also said that this is part of "the cost of goods sold" and didn't blasphemize it. FWIW, I am for the most part a lurker and would be considered "amateur" at best. Not computer illiterate, but learning far more from yours and others expertise than I could ever contribute. Lastly, my post was a generalization and not specific to you or any other poster, but alas, I knew you couldn't resist reply. :-) Ed
RE: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing & Noise, revisited
Rob wrote: >FWIW another technique which I have tried is resampling the image to twice the original size, using the median filter on the area I want to smooth, then resampling back to the original size. This will lose detail, but is very effective with things like the sky. Your're right, that technique *does* work quite well in isolated areas. And it *beats up* on detail pretty severely, so it *does* have to be isolated. >Does Photoshop have the ability to "feather" the edges of effects like Paintshop Pro? Using most effects on a selected area instead of the whole image usually ends up highlighting the area that wasn't treated, and it tends to look ugly. I haven't yet invested in the Jasc program--I'm told it's an excellent program, and it's not so much the $$$s as it is the time-investment in learning it. :-) Photoshop *does* have the "feather" ability, but I'm not very adept at using it. I find Micrografx PP8 to be much easier in isolating areas and feathering the edges, which do in fact look particularly "ugly" when they're not blended properly. The masks and feathered edges in PP8 can be controled numerically. The down side is that PP8 filters can't do many of the moves that PS filters can. For me, it's often the difference between a rock and a hard place. :-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2001 4:37:41 AM GMT Subject: RE: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing & Noise, revisited Lynn wrote: >Intuitively (using "non-linear logic," that is), I can see that a "Mix & >Match" approach will probably produce the best results for retouching, since >every "problem picture" has its own idiosyncrasies. FWIW another technique which I have tried is resampling the image to twice the original size, using the median filter on the area I want to smooth, then resampling back to the original size. This will lose detail, but is very effective with things like the sky. Does Photoshop have the ability to "feather" the edges of effects like Paintshop Pro? Using most effects on a selected area instead of the whole image usually ends up highlighting the area that wasn't treated, and it tends to look ugly. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Brief review of LS-4000
Thank you for a very thorough, very detailed review. Maris Lidaka - Original Message - From: "Dieder Bylsma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: filmscanners: Brief review of LS-4000 | Just thought I'd pipe in with my own two pfennings,yen,cents, | whatever about the LS-4000 now that I have one in my paws. | | One of my biggest concerns in purchasing this scanner was that the | scanner would be a 'domestic' version for Japan only, i.e. it's power | supply would only be for 100 V 50/60 Hz. Well, As Ed Hamrick | mentioned a while back wrt the USB LS-40 and as I've confirmed, the | scanner comes with a multi-voltage power supply. Good for 100-240 V | 50/60 Hz. First problem solved. =) | | The second problem is one that I'm working through by carefully | reading the documentation (multiple language documentation on a | separate CD and a single-language install (Japanese) on the other CD) | and fiddling with the buttons and options. Looks like this scanner | has a lot of potential here. Yikes, a veritable plethora of options | compared to the LS-30 or the LS-2000. | | | Strip film adapter | -- | | The film handling of the strip film feeder looks like it has been | significantly improved over the take up spool method of the | LS-30/LS-2000. Instead of the film being drawn into a roll within the | film feeder adapter, it is pulled into the scanner and from what I | can determine, stays flat within the scanner. Because the LS-4000 has | a roll-film adapter (which I'll be purchasing once my wallet recovers | from the LS-4000), it has a straight-through path from front to back. | The film is inserted into the film feeder at an oblique angle of | about 30 degrees off vertical instead of the 90 degree (horizontal) | approach of the LS-30/LS-2000. It pulls the strip completely within | the scanner and there it stays until you're finished with that strip. | I haven't tried it with a 6 frame negative strip yet, but with the 4 | frame negative strip, while scanning any of the frames, the film | strip stays within the innards of the scanner. When the film strip is | ejected after being in the scanner for a while, it shows no sign of | curling as in the LS-30/LS-2000. This is great news. =) | | When using the strip film feeder, as with the LS-30/LS-2000 there are | two options for thumbnails...either numbered without a thumbnail | preview or numbered with a thumbnail preview with frame numbers. | Unlike the LS-30/LS-2000 series though, with the LS-4000 it does not | show the correct number of thumbnails in the non-preview mode and | always shows 6 frames. This is corrected once you choose the | thumbnail & preview option. Ditto for the roll film adapter...all | rolls will show as 40 frames until you do a preview. This is | documented in the PDF documentation. | | The machine is very quiet and the advancing of the film is much much | more quiet than the the LS-30/LS-2000. | | Another quirk is that despite the scanner being a firewire scanner | (IEEE 1394/iLink), it has only one port, which means it has to be at | the end of a firewire chain. Nikon recommends against using Firewire | hubs with the scanner. They do include with the machine a PCI | Firewire card so the presence or absence of a firewire port in your | PC/Mac shouldn't be an obstacle to using the scanner. That being | said, unless I want to install the PCI card into my machine this | means my firewire options are limited by the lack of firewire | pass-through/daisy-chain options. | | | | Scanning | | | Doing thumbnail scans and previews is remarkably swift. If you want | to do quick adjustments etc, it's easy enough to do. As mentioned | above, there's a load of options not available in the previous | incarnation of the software. Incidentally, the software can be used | for the LS-30/LS-2000. | | Now for NikonScan tidbits. It helps considerably if you have gobs and | gobs of RAM. Even with the fastest of machines, with the size of | images it can produce (14 bit 4000 dpi of a ~35mm negative frame | gives ~120Mb file sizes), it will take all the memory it can get its | hands on. Because I have a Mac, I can set the memory allocation for | the NikonScan software, whereas with Windows, you will rely on the OS | to keep up with the ballooning demands of the scanning software. | | To push the software and the scanner a bit, I scanned a negative at | 4000 dpi, 16x multi-sampling, 14 bit colour, with Digital ICE enabled | in its 'normal' mode and then used GEM (Grain Reduction) set for the | default of 3 (on a 0-5 scale). The first time I did that, it took | over 40 minutes from start to finish. This was because I had not | increased the memory allocation from its paltry default (think about | 70Mb?) and it was spooling the 121+ MB file to and from the scratch | drive (a nice fast 7200 rpm IBM drive). Bum
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD
I just went to http://www.silverfast.com/english/silverfast/se/ where it reads: Currently available versions: DC-SE for digital cameras, SE for Epson , Hewlett Packard, LaCie, Microtek, Nikon, Umax scanners. Maris - Original Message - From: "Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:35 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD | At 21:13 09-04-01 -0400, you wrote: | >Mikael wrote: | > | > >SilverFast SE . Scanner software . A light version of Silverfast Ai. | >Guides the novice user step by step to brilliant images. (Silverfast own | >text) | - | Below is a quote from the Silvefast website and what confuses me is it says | Silverfast SE is designed to work wit all major scanners but then goes on | to say -currently we offer Se for Epson scanners - so does it work with | other scanners ??? | Stuart | | "SilverFast SE is designed to work with all major scanners while SilverFast | DC-SE is designed to process data from all digital cameras. Currently we | offer SilverFast SE for Epson scanners, and DC-SE for working with images | on your local drive." | | | |
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
These are the symptoms that I had experienced with scans from my Epson Perfection 1200U Photo - midtone gradients in steps with a blue-gray to blue-black cast and very pale greens (that should have been rich green). There was also a substantial loss of detail in these areas of pale green. I had defined these symptoms as posterization. I thought the images were unacceptable and never tried printing them. I did, however, look at them in Photoshop 5.5 and Paint Shop Pro 6.0 and the images were the same when viewed in both applications. I am using an ATI All-in-Wonder Pro 128 display adapter and was previously using a Rage Fury 128 - both using ATI Rage 128 architecture. I did note that these problems occurred on scans from slightly over exposed negatives and slightly under exposed transparencies. I sent the scanned images to Epson, with the problem areas annotated, and they concurred with what I described but said none of their scanners would do any better. I returned the scanner and they are refunding my money. I have a friend with an Epson Perfection 1640 who is very pleased with it. He is using a Mac (don't want to get another fire started here), but there were two things I didn't do that you have pointed out. one is I did not make a test print (I thought what I saw on the screen would show up in the print). And 2, I did not try the scan using another display card. I should mention, however, that I have another friend, with an Epson 1200 Photo who is using a Matrox G-400 display adapter. I have seen similar symptoms on his scans although he insists that they are not as prevalent as on my scans. That is subjective because the scans were not of the same images. After reading some of these posts I think I will ask my friend with the Epson Perfection 1640 to scan some of my problem images and compare the results. Good points to consider and this is only one example that makes this group worthwhile, Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: > Richard, > > I ran into a problem with Photoshop 4.01 on the PC where it posterized > badly when I did levels adjustments in 16 bit. The problem did not > occur if I worked in 8 bit. It usually happened in midtones going quite > dark blue-black. > > I never printed these so, I have no idea what they would have looked > like. However, I was told by some it was probably a graphic/video card > driver problem. I had upgraded to the newest version, so I contacted > Diamond, my videocard manufacturer. They admitted there were some > incompatibilities with the card I had and Photoshop, and suggested I > update the card on a trade in basis. > > On a last attempt, I upgraded to Photoshop 5.0, and magically the > problem went away, so it was either a PS and Diamond problem, or a PS > only problem, but it's gone now, and I did not replace my videocard or > have I upgraded the driver since. > > I recognize your situation is on a Mac, and I don't know if any of this > relates, but obviously PS Version 4 for Windows was buggy. > > Art > > Richard Starr wrote: > > > --- You wrote: > > You will be able to chack whether it is the file, or a problem with the > > display/graphics system, by viewing the histogram. Contouring shows up as > > missing bit values, leaving the histogram looking like a mangy dog's comb. > > > > What file type is this, and what processing has been done (and by what) en > > route to the screen? And what scanner/software? > > --- end of quote --- > > Thanks for the answers to this. I am still finding my way with my semi-disabled > > Nikon 3510AF. Full resolution scans take 15 minutes and correcting the color > > misregistration takes 10 more. Until I can afford a modern scanner, I'm still > > in the dark ages. The film in one case is either Kodak 1000 negative film or an > > 800 negative film from maybe Agfa. Definitley available light material shot in > > my little Olympus XA4 (a jewel.) I would have done some curves or gamma > > adjustments in Photoshop. Maybe a curves adjustment in the Nikon software for > > one of the pictures. > > > > The odd thing is that the posterization seems to show in the display and not in > > the print. This suggests a bug somewhere in the software or hardware. It's > > Photoshop 4.0.1 on a SuperMac with an ATI video board and a Sony monitor. It's > > all good stuff. > > > > Still, this Photoshop version is a little buggy, I think. I used to use this > > version on a 68000 Mac and it worked better with regard to previews anyway. On > > the PPC Mac (it installs as a ppc version)checking and unchecking preview > > boxes may or may not affect the display depending on the thing being adjusted. > > When the display is previewed, the adjustment affects the whole screen, so the > > background becomes magenta or darker or whatever. It's hard to make subtle > > judgements that way even if the image fills most of the screen. I don't think > > the 68k Mac version did these things. Maybe later versions don't. > > > >
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD
Supported Nikon scanners. LS 20 LS 1000 AX 110 AX 210 AX 1200 - Original Message - From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD > I just went to http://www.silverfast.com/english/silverfast/se/ where it > reads: > > Currently available versions: DC-SE for digital cameras, SE for Epson , > Hewlett Packard, LaCie, Microtek, Nikon, Umax scanners. > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:35 AM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD > > > | At 21:13 09-04-01 -0400, you wrote: > | >Mikael wrote: > | > > | > >SilverFast SE . Scanner software . A light version of Silverfast Ai. > | >Guides the novice user step by step to brilliant images. (Silverfast own > | >text) > | - > | Below is a quote from the Silvefast website and what confuses me is it > says > | Silverfast SE is designed to work wit all major scanners but then goes on > | to say -currently we offer Se for Epson scanners - so does it work with > | other scanners ??? > | Stuart > | > | "SilverFast SE is designed to work with all major scanners while > SilverFast > | DC-SE is designed to process data from all digital cameras. Currently we > | offer SilverFast SE for Epson scanners, and DC-SE for working with images > | on your local drive." > | > | > | > | >
filmscanners: Vuescan 7.0.12
Hamrick Software - http://www.hamrick.com/ VueScan 7.0.12 Release Notes April 6, 2001 What's new in version 7.0.12 * Fixed problem with using transparency adapter on newer Microtek flatbed scanners * Fixed problem with 24-bit scans on Nikon LS-4000
Re: filmscanners: Blue noise - suggestions for removal?
I could deal with the blue of the fringe but not the darkness of the fringe: (Using Corel PhotoPaint) I changed to LAB mode, then adjusted the tone curve of channel B (the blue-yellow continuum channel): I raised the middle of the curve from 0-0 coordinates to about 0-+2 or 3 on a scale of 0 to 60 each direction so that's about 2-3%. To eliminate extra yellow in the cheeks I then decreased the upper (right) hald of the new curve by about the same amount, bringing the curve there back to about +30-+30. The result is attached. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:57 AM Subject: filmscanners: Blue noise - suggestions for removal? | My apologies in advance to digest readers for the attached image. I've cut| it down to 6K to minimise the uuencoded text.| The attached photo is the result of a really icky combination of film and| light. The film is Kodak 320T tungsten balanced slide film, and I've taken| the photo by flash - which is of course daylight balanced... The result is| the ugly blue shadows. I've managed to remove most of the colour imbalance| from the original slide, but does anyone have any suggestions for removing| the blue fringing?| | Scanned on a Nikon LS30 using Vuescan 7.0.10 with a 4X multipass.| | Yes I know it's grainy but on this occasion I'm not worried about the grain.| :) It's 320 speed slide film after all.| | Rob| | new-1.jpg
RE: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing & Noise, revisited
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing & Noise, revisited > Does Photoshop have the ability to "feather" the edges of effects > like Paintshop > Pro? Using most effects on a selected area instead of the whole > image usually > ends up highlighting the area that wasn't treated, and it tends to look > ugly. Any selection in Photoshop can be feathered; Go to the SELECT menu, choose FEATHER, and a "Feather Selection" dialog box opens. Just enter the number of pixels to feather by, and click OK. Chuck Skinner
RE: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:12:54 -0400 Dave Buyens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > His investigations resulted in the feature at > > http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm which > > remains the most thorough attempt at an explanation - you > > still won't find it in any text books AFAIK. > > I have no doubt that what you say may be true. However, one thought > that > occurred to me when comparing a scanned print with a scanned negative is > that the print has a lower tonal range Just to be clear, the feature on grain aliasing is all John's work, nothing to do with me except I read it before he published it and couldn't find anything to argue with, though I don't remember if I completely agree with everything he said ;) But I was talking about grain size seen in a print, vs grain size seen in a scan of the same bit of film. Even allowing for the vagaries of either process, if a scan has substantially coarser grain, something odd is going on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
filmscanners: Kodak Q60 Calibration
Anyone know of a link to a tutorial on using the Kodak Q60 slide for the creation of a scanner curve to calibrate a scanner? Thanks. Ken Jaskot
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Q60 Calibration
I'll draw some flack from this you I can point you to, without recommending or disparaging the site, http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/kodak_q60/index.htm I haven't had the time to go through his method or try it but if you do please let me know whether it's good, bad or indifferent. Maris - Original Message - From: "Software City" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:02 PM Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Q60 Calibration | Anyone know of a link to a tutorial on using the Kodak Q60 slide for the | creation of a scanner curve to calibrate a scanner? Thanks. | Ken Jaskot | |
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast lamp lightness option
Dear Steve , thank you for your thoughtful work. Ill try it out for myself as I have been curious too, but lazy(or at times just plain overwhelmed by the steepness of the learning curve). Have you checked this with Ian Lyons? Regards, Michael Smith > From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:02:57 +0100 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: filmscanners: Silverfast lamp lightness option > > Reading Ian lyons very helpful tutorial "Silverfast 5 and the Polaroid > SS4000 : Part 1 - Basic steps to IT-8 calibration", I found he used a value > of 10 for lamp lightness. He noted that this allowed him to maximise shadow > detail. > > Sounds good to me, but how do I know what value would be good for my > (mechanically) similar Artixscan 4000 ? > > After a little thought I came up with the following technique: > > I used IT-8 slide with the HDR option. I made an initial scan and used PS to > check the RGB values in the grey scale area for rectangles "0" and "23" > which I think should be pure white and pure black respectively. > I found the white was well short of 255 in every channel. So I tried > progressively higher values in lamp control until it became almost > completely 255 in every channel. I then backed the lamp control off until > the values were generally 255/254 in every channel. This by my reckoning > maximised the bandwidth as the black was still showing RGB 0/1 or sometimes > 2. I then recalibrated using the IT8 slide. I checked a before and after > scan nd I do not appear to have introduced loads of noise. > > My final value was 24 where as Ian ended up at 10. > > Does my technique of arriving at the final lamp setting make sense ? > > Can anyone suggest anything better ? > > Any nasty flaws ? > > Steve >
Re: filmscanners: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan...
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:18 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan... > On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:40:38 -0500 Tom Scales ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > Shoot, I've never seen one, but it seems like the Nikon 4000 ED with the > > optional slide feeder would be perfect. 36 shots at a time. > > Doubtful - it will be extremely slow compared to bulk scanning stations > which process slides in a matter of seconds each. > > Does anyone know if, with the LS4000 feeder, Nikon have finally got around > to fixing the notorious jamming/misfeed problems which affected the > hoppers for both the LS1000 & LS2000? Or whether they've improved their > idea of autoexposure ( on previous models: work out the exposure for the > first slide in the hopper and then assume all the rest are identical)? > Probably not, as I don't expect the '4000 hopper is being distributed yet. i find my SF-200 (LS-2000 slide feeder) to be foolproof, but it took me a long time to get it that way. the primary reason for jams is the mount being too rough surfaced or placed incorrectly causing two slides to be fed into the scanner at a time. i found, for example, that one particular type of plastic mount (i forget the brand) would work fine in one direction, but would cause jams in another (you can test this by putting two slides together and sliding them around. if they can slide to the right, that's how you put them in). the mounts i use now, thin gepe when machine mounted, the thicker ones when hand mounting (the thicker the mount the less jams you'll get) work exceptionally well. i haven't experienced a jam in over a year (at least a thousand scans and all in the feeder). ~j
Re: filmscanners: Blue noise - suggestions for removal?
As a first approximation I would use the channel mixer in photoshop, with the 'shadows' box checked, and push up the red or pull down the blue. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
