filmscanners: Another link on Joe RGB
If you followed my last post, you know that Joe Holmes has developed a color space known as EktaSpace or "Joe RGB"... this is a link to a PDF where he explains in such a way that even Groucho could undertsand it...:) http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/images/EkSpPS5.pdf Mike Moore
filmscanners: Another ColorSpace article
I looked up Joe Holmes on Google, which led me to this CreativePro.com article on the various color spaces... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html?origin=story the author is pretty close to the Einstein standard but not quite to Groucho's level... :) Mike M.
RE: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
You were kidding, weren't you, Laurie??? Hersch At 01:27 PM 04/11/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Hmmm! I do not know too many children that Einstein explained his theory of >relativity to who truely understood it and all its mathematical >formulations. :-) Just because one can explain something in the grossly >popularized fashion so that a child can get the general gist of the concepts >does not mean that they have explained it or that it is truely understood by >child or adult, explainer or explainee. ;-) Sometimes, things are not >explainable, articulatable, or effable not so much due to their complexity >as to the fact that the underlying notions and conceptions present an alien >version of reality which those not open to accepting it by bracketing their >beliefs in their own versions of reality and calling those assumptions into >question as problematic will have trouble comprehending the edifice that is >built upon that substructureal foundation. > >Maybe this is the case with color management and color correction theories >and procedures. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore >Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:05 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink > > >Tony: This was a test... I believe it was Einstein who said that if you >cannot >explain a complex concept to a child, then you do not truly understand it >yourself :) > >Mike M. > > >Tony Sleep wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:57:05 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > > > http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641.html?cprose=2-15 > > > > > > If anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to explain it to a > > > child wants to share that understanding, I would be most grateful... > > > > Fraser is a star, presenting dreadful technical material with amazing > > clarity and eloquence. I don't think it's at all a difficult article, so > > long as you understand the stuff he doesn't go into there - profiling etc. > > If you don't, the solution is to read more Fraser features about the stuff > > that seems confusing (lots at Creative Pro), or buy his books. > > > > However, since I have now demeaned your intellectual ability and > > slovenliness , I had better offer a quick precis : > > > > When reprofiling, use the 'perceptual intent' rendering method except when > > one of the other choices works better. In which case use that. > > > > :-)) > > > > Regards > > > > Tony Sleep > > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner > > info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Re: Solux lights
Joseph Holmes writes: My favorite viewing light solution costs only about one seventh as much as the GTI desktop lightbox with dimmers, takes up no desk space, doesn't flicker, and has colorimetrically better quality light, as well as good color temperature, but it is not very useful for viewing transparencies. For that I use a mini-5000 Just Normlicht box. The print viewing light consists of the following items: One SoLux 4700K, 50 watt, 12 volt, 37 degree beam angle, halogen spot (MR16 type). Go to soluxtli.com for more information. Retail price $15. This is the best quality artificial light that I know of in the world and has a CRI of 99+ in the main part of the beam. Or call Tailored Lighting in Rochester, NY, which created this wonderful lamp, at (716) 647-3199. One length of Halo brand track (basic, single circuit type). Mine is parallel to the wall behind my monitor and positioned 21 or 22" off the wall (my 19" monitor is twisted at a 20 degree angle and almost touches the wall). My track is hardwired and has its own wall switch. Cost maybe ten or twenty dollars for the track. Halo Lighting (847) 956-1537 in Elk Grove Village, Illinois (corporate headquarters, find a dealer). Either a Halo L950 "Cord and Plug Connector" (12-foot three-wire cord with grounded plug, ten amp rating) or a hardwired setup. Probably about fifteen bucks for the cord goodie. One Halo fixture, model number L2770 P (P is the color code which is white. They also make black which has the color code: MB). Fixture costs between about $127 and $179 depending on the store and it is the ONLY one I have found that will make this work right. Beware of using the wrong one (any other one) for reasons that I may explain later! One Halo L111 Soft Focus Lens, cost about $10 to $15, which is a glass disk with a bumpy surface to put into the fixture in front of the lamp to get superior beam smoothness. Mount the fixture right over the monitor's left side and point it down and to the right to illuminate prints held just to the right of the monitor, and put a bit of black mat board across the top of the monitor to keep your dust from being lit up on the face of the monitor. The top of the track (i.e. the ceiling) should be about 45 inches straight up from the center of the monitor to get the intensity right with the 36 degree SoLux lamp. I think they also make both 24 and 12 degree beam angle versions which would need to be mounted further away and might accommodate a much higher ceiling. Total cost about $200 and maybe three hours of work, including mounting the track and getting the parts. The lamp works by letting amber light out the back of the lamp with its dielectric reflector coating and by reflecting more bluish light out the front, accounting for the color temp far above that of the filament. This amber light coming out of the back must be totally absorbed by the fixture so as not to pollute the room with the wrong color of light (about 2000K), and the light coming out the front, but at a wide angle to the beam, which is coming directly from the filament, must also be absorbed by the fixture because it is about 3000K. Only the model L2770 fixture achieves sufficient absorbtion of this unwanted light coming from the lamp. If you want to illuminate a print as large as a full sheet of IRIS output, all you need to do is have two fixtures and adjust them accordingly. This is a wonderful solution to an obnoxious problem, that I love using every day. Joseph Holmes
Re: filmscanners: Re: Solux lights
I believe the Solux Task lamp accomplishes all the things Joe Holmes wrote about, for about the same cost and no work. It wasn't available at the time he wrote this. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Re: Solux lights
I have an additional saved post from Joe Holmes regarding print viewing lighting. Joe Holmes writes: The lighting thing isn't so hard to explain. The first point is that if you want an image on a monitor to match the appearance of a print or film that you hold to it, you simply make the white points precisely identical, and the CRI of each light source has to be pretty good or better (the monitor itself is really spikey, but mere mortals can't help that, at least until some other mere mortals make better displays). And, let's not forget, the lighting intensity has to match, more or less. The best way to do that for my money (and the bother factor too) is the SoLux 36 degree beam angle 4700K halogen spot lamp (MR 16 type) in a track light fixture made by Halo, the L2770P (in white), with a diffuser disk, L111 "Soft Focus Lens". Total cost about $200 and a few hours to put together. Two would be nice for lighting BIG prints or for washing the other side of the monitor. Also, if side-by-side soft proofing is your bag, then don't underestimate the value to your pictures of good, opaque window shades. I have been known to say that window shades are as important as hard drives, and unless you live in a cave, or work at night, it's true (if you really want to make pictures just right). My studio has good shades, and I have six pairs of twin 48" D50 fluorescents for the main lighting, plus the SoLux mounted over my monitor. When I want really good lighting, I close the shades, turn off the overhead lights, and turn on the SoLux. The monitor's white point is visually matched to the SoLux white point, with the SoLux shining on my favorite printing paper (Fujicolor Crystal Archive). The monitor is calibrated to the "Current" option in Prove it! with the instrument, or calibrated visually, which I like just as well overall, maybe better. When you need to match the print to the screen, rather just evaluate it, then the viewing light hardly matters, except inasmuch as "what you light it up with is what you get", to coin a phrase. Indeed prints are not illuminated with D50 lights in galleries or museums, ever (with very rare exceptions, i.e. with SoLux lamps, or the occasional 5000K fluorescent). And since your eyes adjust very, very well to changing white points, the image, with its white paper base takes its own white point with it, so the main issue for viewing the print is that if you use ordinary cool tungsten (i.e. warm, very yellowish), as opposed to hot (i.e. less yellow) tungsten halogens, for example, then the blue really dies noticeably in prints because there is a limit to how much the light can be off from daylight, especially when dim, and our eyes still adapt fully. I evaluate the print's match to the soft proof, just to see if the color management and printer process control is working right. Then I evaluate the editing that I did to the image by viewing the print under a series of light sources, including ordinary tungsten, tungsten halogen, D50 fluorescents, cloudy daylight, and window light on a sunny day. If the print looks good under one, it will pretty much look good under all of them, but when you start getting really picky, you try to make it look its best under a compromise somewhere in the middle (e.g. a SoLux 4200K lamp, which is another product. Don't forget to check out your prints under fairly dim lighting. Bright light can hide a multitude of ways for a print to be . Joe Holmes
Re: filmscanners: Spritscan 4000 sensor cleaning kit
>Polaroid has found that the load sensor for the film carrier can sometimes >collect dust that renders the sensor inoperative. The scanner may run >continuously. Running continuously can also occur if the scanner is set to >SCSI ID 7 which is a test position and not a fault. >Polaroid has made available, free of charge, a cleaning brush kit that >cleans this sensor. For customers in the US, call 1-800-432-5355 (Mon-Fri, >8am to 8pm EST). Ask for a SprintScan 4000 Cleaning Brush Accessory, part >number CPS 546 >The link below should take you to the article. >Thanks >David David, Is the cleaning kit available only in the US, or also elsewhere? Most particularly either the UK or Russia. Thanks, Jeremy Nicholl
RE: filmscanners: Spritscan 4000 sensor cleaning kit
Jeremy, I would not want to bet on Russia but the UK should have them.If not give me a call. David -Original Message- From: Jeremy Nicholl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Spritscan 4000 sensor cleaning kit >Polaroid has found that the load sensor for the film carrier can sometimes >collect dust that renders the sensor inoperative. The scanner may run >continuously. Running continuously can also occur if the scanner is set to >SCSI ID 7 which is a test position and not a fault. >Polaroid has made available, free of charge, a cleaning brush kit that >cleans this sensor. For customers in the US, call 1-800-432-5355 (Mon-Fri, >8am to 8pm EST). Ask for a SprintScan 4000 Cleaning Brush Accessory, part >number CPS 546 >The link below should take you to the article. >Thanks >David David, Is the cleaning kit available only in the US, or also elsewhere? Most particularly either the UK or Russia. Thanks, Jeremy Nicholl
filmscanners: Re: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
btw, i'm more interested in film (Kodak B&W+) performance than slides. forgot to add previously. /Acer V -- dum spiro, spero http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01
filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
pls. note this is being sent to TWO lists (so you don't reply to BOTH ) might be slighly OT for both lists...(neither FILMscanner nor OM specific) has anyone used the transparency adaptor for the epson perfection 636u? from a picture in the scanner's manual, it appears to have it's own lightsource, and can scan up to 4x5. it replaces the flatbed's lid, occupying the entire top, and i guess it switches off the flatbed's lamp, using only the adaptor's lamp and fb's sensor. epson has it for 90bucks. if anyone has used it (or similar product to it; different from the "pyramid" tranny adaptors on most flatbeds), i'd like to hear comments. i have plenty of Tri-X, B&W+ and slides, not to mention lots of just regular film that wasn't printed to my taste. a film scanner is currently out of the question. any user experience would be much appreciated, along with caveats (if any; not that i expect results akin to a filmscanner ;)) target will be web display, perhaps a nice 8x10 print on a photo printer. thanks, /Acer V -- dum spiro, spero http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01
Re: filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
I've used it a few times on my Perfection 636 and then on my Perfection 1200, they both take the same adapter. Depending on the quality (and I'm serious here) of your original slides, it might work for you. I got a decent 4x6 print from a 35mm slide but it was a "perfectly exposed" slide that I had gotten back from my stock agency. I've had moderate success scanning clients 4x5 transparencies for their web site, though not as good had they shot their art work with a 35mm film camera and sent me the slides to scan with my Polaroid ss4000. It won't replace a good film scanner. That being said, It's worth every penny of the $90 compared to spending $3000 for a real scanner for medium format. Or much more for a 4x5 scanner. If you're only interested in 35mm, get a real film scanner. You won't be disappointed. Larry >has anyone used the transparency adaptor for the epson perfection >636u? from a picture in the scanner's manual, it appears to have it's own >lightsource, and can scan up to 4x5. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
If I'm not mistaken, the 636u is a 600spi scanner. I have the 1200U Epson flatbed with the transparency adaptor. Your description of it is exactly correct - it is not like the pyramid - it has its own light source and it uses that and switches off the light underneath the glass. It works very well with one *major* caveat - at 1200spi for my 1200U the resolution would be sufficient for web work, would be passably good for 4X6" or 5X7 maximum prints, but certainly not for 8X10" prints. If the 636u is 600spi it would barely be sufficient for that. It would work well for you for medium format film and similar film larger than 35mm. Maris - Original Message - From: "Acer V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Zuikoholics (In)Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor? | pls. note this is being sent to TWO lists (so you don't reply to BOTH ) | might be slighly OT for both lists...(neither FILMscanner nor OM specific) | | has anyone used the transparency adaptor for the epson perfection | 636u? from a picture in the scanner's manual, it appears to have it's own | lightsource, and can scan up to 4x5. it replaces the flatbed's lid, | occupying the entire top, and i guess it switches off the flatbed's lamp, | using only the adaptor's lamp and fb's sensor. epson has it for 90bucks. | | if anyone has used it (or similar product to it; different from the | "pyramid" tranny adaptors on most flatbeds), i'd like to hear comments. i | have plenty of Tri-X, B&W+ and slides, not to mention lots of just regular | film that wasn't printed to my taste. a film scanner is currently out of the | question. any user experience would be much appreciated, along with | caveats (if any; not that i expect results akin to a filmscanner | ;)) target will be web display, perhaps a nice 8x10 print on a photo | printer. | | thanks, | | /Acer V | -- | dum spiro, spero | http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01 |
Re: filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Larry Berman wrote: >1200, they both take the same adapter. Depending on the quality (and I'm >serious here) of your original slides, it might work for you. I got a i have a few slides, the "keepers" out of many rolls, but i'm not doing much slide shots, not do i plan to. the keepers are, imo, exposed well, certainly to my liking :) >to scan with my Polaroid ss4000. It won't replace a good film scanner. a filmscanner is something i plan on getting in the future, but right now i can't justify dropping 500, when i can get passable results for web-use for 1/5 the price. >That being said, It's worth every penny of the $90 compared to spending >$3000 for a real scanner for medium format. Or much more for a 4x5 scanner. >If you're only interested in 35mm, get a real film scanner. You won't be >disappointed. see comments above, and it will be only for 35mm work, i don't have mf equipment. thanks for a promt reply :) /Acer V -- dum spiro, spero http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01
Re: filmscanners: epson flatbed transparency adaptor?
yes, the native res is 600dpi optical (altho they claim 600x2400 hardware res (what is that? i know optical and interpolated, but hardware is a new term)...is there a reason one dimension can be scanned at a higher res?). so no 8x10? oh well, i'll print 4x6 if needed. thanks, /Acer V -- dum spiro, spero http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01
