Re: filmscanners: Comparison of LS2000 and LS4000

[Julian Robinson]

Thanks for this really interesting comparison.  I am impressed by the 
roc/gem technology, especially by this example of gem (grain 
reduction).  Of course we expected some grain reduction anyway because of 
the 4000dpi (which I think the LS4000 scans at even at the lower 
resolutions that were used in the examples) and indeed there is some 
improvement without GEM.  But gem as well makes this very grainy film look 
good!

It is hard to tell from this example how much softening there is - I can 
see some apparent softening but this may be fixable with different settings 
or a bit of sharpening.

ROC - colour reconstruction - has changed the image a lot.  My guess is 
that the original was daylight film with tungsten light in which case ROC 
has done an arguably good job.  Now too cool, but I am sure I would find it 
easier to adjust for good skin tones from the ROC'd version than the original.

Thanks again for the insight,

Julian

At 05:26 01/05/01, you wrote:
>http://www.starhk.com/peterpen/nikontest.htm
>
>Includes:
>- Sample scans from same frame using LS2000 and LS4000 (not full res)
>- Sample using GEM/ROC
>- Pictures of the LS4000 internals
>- hand measured scan times with various features on/off


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII

[Julian Robinson]

As I have said before, I use NS3.0 with my LS2000 and have had no 
problems.  Colour is IMHO better straight out of the box and my other 
previous comments are below.  There are quite a few others on this list and 
others who are using it too, some with  macs and some pcs.  Mine is a pc, 
and I have not had any problems, but then I have not tried setting up 
colour management either.  I am pleased with the colour exactly as it is on 
my system, for non-critical work.

Nikon USA were non-committal about using the NS3/LS2000 combination; they 
just wished me luck.

Julian
-last post-
I am using Nikonscan 3.0 with my LS2000. I was doubtful as to whether it 
would work with Win98 not SE, but it does, apparently flawlessly touch wood 
(apart from same bugs/problems others have noted).

So it seems the only reason Nikon "require" Win98SE is for the firewire 
connection.

Ver 3.0 is a great improvement in many ways on 2.5.1, once you get used to 
the initially annoying tool palette. As someone else noted, no more blown 
highlights, and the histogram is much more accurate at the low end - where 
I had constant problems with 2.5.1.

One interesting point - on mine at least the ver 3 ICE produces much more 
softening than the ver 2 ICE did. I don't know why this would be so. Using 
sharpen helps significantly. I haven't seen jaggies yet, but I haven't 
looked hard yet either.

If I activate "curves" the whole thing slows down greatly, which it did not 
do under the old version. Another small mystery.
-

julian


At 02:34 30/04/01, you wrote:
>This site says that you should not use Nikonscan 3.0 with the LS-2000?  Is
>this true?  The site indicates that later versions of Nikonscan 3.0 will
>officially support the LS-2000.
>
>=Steve Caspersen
>- Original Message -
>From: "Dale & Gail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 3:10 AM
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
>
>
> > You can get it from the following URL:
> >
> > http://www.nikontechusa.com/
> >
> > Dale
> >
> >
> > From: "Andreas Kurz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Hi Hersch,
> > > were did you get NikonScan 3.0?
> > > regards,
> > > Andi
> >
> >


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Copy 15?  I'm sorry I asked ;-)

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Bye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen


While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Rob Geraghty]

Edwni wrote:
>How cheap is the Fuji?  I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about
>$2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra
>100ASA scans very well.

I can get Fuji Superia 24 (not 36) for about US$1.50.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years -
everything over and above that is a gift.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)


|
|
| Laurie Solomon wrote:
|
| > Art,
| >
| > Interestingly, I have been finding that the length of the film leaders
on
| > both ends of the film have gotten shorter and shorter as time has gone
on.
| > There use to be enough leader to allow for three extra frames plus room
to
| > put clips on the ends of the film; now in some cases there is hardly
room to
| > have an extra frame and room for clips.  My understanding is that the
| > industry is attempting to save money in a competitive market by
shortening
| > the amount of leader they provide under the justification that the
current
| > batch of automatic everything cameras and processing do not require as
much
| > leader as in the past where things were less sophisticated and more
manual.
| >
|
| I think there is some truth to what you say, however, I think the camera
| manufacturers have gotten together with the film companies to make sure
| the autoload cameras waste a lot of leader.  My films from the Nikon
| 801s come back with a huge wasted unexposed leader.  I once asked Nikon
| if there was anyway to adjust this to get an extra frame or two from it,
| but they claimed no way.  I'm certain all that film isn't required to
| thread safely.
|
| My wife's Canon Rebel G gets 36 frames most of the time and occasionally
| 37 (and it uses reverse loading... it preloads the whole film and then
| shoots backwards until the film is at the beginning), the Nikon 801s 37
| and occasionally 38 (always chopped by lab), the Nikon FM and FE, always
| 38 sometimes 39 (usually chopped by lab).  Same film, same lab.
|
| Now, those small autoload rangefinder cameras should have no problem
| getting 39, with current film lengths, but do they?
|
| The thing with the autoload cameras is you barely have to pull any film
| out of the cassette before closing the back, meaning more unexposed film
| available.  The Manual loads usually require keeping the back open until
| you have rolled the film to the take up reel a few times.
|
| People might think I'm crazy to worry about one or two or three frames a
| roll, but we're speaking about film and processing (and mounting
| sometimes) and 2 frames a roll for me can be 800-1000 or more frames a
| year... it adds up.
|
| And now, having gone way off topic, I bow out of this discussion.
|
| Art
|
|
|
|

Re: filmscanners: list archives (re. monitors)

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Of value also is a summary of a discussion about monitors at Dan Margulis's
website distilled from messages on the Color Theory mailing list:


Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Acer V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:15 PM
Subject: filmscanners: list archives (re. monitors)


| hi;
|
| i know there was discussion about computer monitors some time back, with
| one person (frank paris?) extolling virtues of the Cornerstone P
| series. is there an archive of the list somewhere? i checked the
| filmscanner webpage (tony sleep) and dind't find anythig there. in case
| there is no archive, would frank (or whoever it was) pls email me
| thanks, sorry for the OT.
|
| /Acer V
| --
| dum spiro, spero
| http://users2.ev1.net/~wesiddiquis/siddiq/ <--!!!NEW LOCATION!!!
|
|

Re: filmscanners: list archives (re. monitors)

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

There is a privately-maintained (thank you I don't remember who!) archive at

http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Acer V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:15 PM
Subject: filmscanners: list archives (re. monitors)


| hi;
| 
| i know there was discussion about computer monitors some time back, with
| one person (frank paris?) extolling virtues of the Cornerstone P
| series. is there an archive of the list somewhere? i checked the
| filmscanner webpage (tony sleep) and dind't find anythig there. in case
| there is no archive, would frank (or whoever it was) pls email me
| thanks, sorry for the OT.
| 
| /Acer V
| --
| dum spiro, spero
| http://users2.ev1.net/~wesiddiquis/siddiq/ <--!!!NEW LOCATION!!!
| 
| 

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen - PROBLEM FIXED - VERY SORRY

[Steve Bye]

I'm extremely sorry for the repeat postings. I've had a major mailer problem
that I've been trying to fix for 2-3 days, and I just managed to figure it
out.

Steve Bye

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

The Supra line is supposedly 'optimized' for scanning, but I read somewhere
on these newsgroups (I can't cite chapter or verse) that the primary
'optimization' consists of extra protection against scratches as opposed to
improved grain.

I did also take a roll of Kodak Portra VC 160, and it scanned fairly well.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners


| Supra 100?  Am I missing something?
|
| Tom
|
| P.S. I'm actually not blown away with Supra. I prefer Fuji in my SS4000
|
| > Maris wrote:
| > > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film
| > > in scanning sky.  Have you found any good print film for sky?
| >
| > Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
| > a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!
| >
| > Rob
| >
| >
| >
| > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > http://wordweb.com
| >
| >
| >
|
|

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Steve Bye]

While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Steve Bye]

While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

RE: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Laurie Solomon]

Ok, it has been three days later and I have received 4 more additional
copies of this message.  What is happening to cause this prolonged barrage
of the same message.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Bye
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen


While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Arthur Entlich]

Laurie Solomon wrote:

> Art,
> 
> Interestingly, I have been finding that the length of the film leaders on
> both ends of the film have gotten shorter and shorter as time has gone on.
> There use to be enough leader to allow for three extra frames plus room to
> put clips on the ends of the film; now in some cases there is hardly room to
> have an extra frame and room for clips.  My understanding is that the
> industry is attempting to save money in a competitive market by shortening
> the amount of leader they provide under the justification that the current
> batch of automatic everything cameras and processing do not require as much
> leader as in the past where things were less sophisticated and more manual.
> 

I think there is some truth to what you say, however, I think the camera 
manufacturers have gotten together with the film companies to make sure 
the autoload cameras waste a lot of leader.  My films from the Nikon 
801s come back with a huge wasted unexposed leader.  I once asked Nikon 
if there was anyway to adjust this to get an extra frame or two from it, 
but they claimed no way.  I'm certain all that film isn't required to 
thread safely.

My wife's Canon Rebel G gets 36 frames most of the time and occasionally 
37 (and it uses reverse loading... it preloads the whole film and then 
shoots backwards until the film is at the beginning), the Nikon 801s 37 
and occasionally 38 (always chopped by lab), the Nikon FM and FE, always 
38 sometimes 39 (usually chopped by lab).  Same film, same lab.

Now, those small autoload rangefinder cameras should have no problem 
getting 39, with current film lengths, but do they?

The thing with the autoload cameras is you barely have to pull any film 
out of the cassette before closing the back, meaning more unexposed film 
available.  The Manual loads usually require keeping the back open until 
you have rolled the film to the take up reel a few times.

People might think I'm crazy to worry about one or two or three frames a 
roll, but we're speaking about film and processing (and mounting 
sometimes) and 2 frames a roll for me can be 800-1000 or more frames a 
year... it adds up.

And now, having gone way off topic, I bow out of this discussion.

Art

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Steve Bye]

While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Tom Scales]

I buy 24 exposure 100ASA Fuji for about $1.65 in boxes of four at the, gasp,
WalMart.

Tom

> How cheap is the Fuji?  I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about
> $2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but
Supra
> 100ASA scans very well.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
>

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Edwin Eleazer]

How cheap is the Fuji?  I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about
$2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra
100ASA scans very well.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners


> Michael wrote:
> >Rob writes ...
> >> Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
> >> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!
> >Supra 100 (!?)
>
> It's been claimed here that only Supra 400 is a new formulaiton
specifically
> optimised for scanning.  Supra 100 is apparently a previous emulsion
rebadged?
> As far as apparent grain in sky is concerned, I haven't found Supra 100
> to have any advantage over Fuji Superia 100 and the Fuji film is LOTS
cheaper.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Rob Geraghty]

Michael wrote:
>Rob writes ...
>> Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
>> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!
>Supra 100 (!?)

It's been claimed here that only Supra 400 is a new formulaiton specifically
optimised for scanning.  Supra 100 is apparently a previous emulsion rebadged?
As far as apparent grain in sky is concerned, I haven't found Supra 100
to have any advantage over Fuji Superia 100 and the Fuji film is LOTS cheaper.

Rob



Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

filmscanners: list archives (re. monitors)

[Acer V]

hi;

i know there was discussion about computer monitors some time back, with
one person (frank paris?) extolling virtues of the Cornerstone P
series. is there an archive of the list somewhere? i checked the
filmscanner webpage (tony sleep) and dind't find anythig there. in case
there is no archive, would frank (or whoever it was) pls email me
thanks, sorry for the OT.

/Acer V
--
dum spiro, spero
http://users2.ev1.net/~wesiddiquis/siddiq/  <--!!!NEW LOCATION!!!

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Tom Scales]

Supra 100?  Am I missing something?

Tom

P.S. I'm actually not blown away with Supra. I prefer Fuji in my SS4000

> Maris wrote:
> > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film
> > in scanning sky.  Have you found any good print film for sky?
> 
> Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
> 
> 
> 

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[shAf]

Rob writes ...

> Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!

Supra 100 (!?)

shAf  :o)

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Rob Geraghty]

Maris wrote:
> Slide film is generally less grainy than print film
> in scanning sky.  Have you found any good print film for sky?

Someone mentioned Supra 400.  I wish someone would produce
a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning!

Rob



Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

RE: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness

[Rob Geraghty]

Dean wrote:
>Yes, zero should be in the center, but is this the center of the slide
or
>the center of the scan region?  I would prefer the center of the scan
>region.  Also should indicate on the preview  the location of the focus.
>Maybe even have it adjustable there.

All that would be made simpler using a similar method to that already implemented
in Nikonscan; click on a button, click on a point in the image and that's
where the focus is done.  Sure, you could indicate that point in the preview
if you like.

Ed's suggestion was for a single dimension position presumably across the
whole frame, not the scan region.  Making it relative to the center of the
selected region might make sense, but it could also be confusing.  How about
defaulting the focus to the center of the selected area with an offset ranging
from -1 to +1?  That would slow the scan a bit because it would require
a refocus *after* the preview.

Are scanners other than the Nikons able to set the position of the focus?

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Rob Geraghty]

Art wrote:
>Every lab operates slightly differently in terms of how much film they

>require to do their process

Personally I don't think there's any good excuse for fingerprints on the
emulsion, but I'm forgiving in this instance because the Sea & Sea was trying
to take photos on every millimetre of the film.  One of the first "frames"
was cut in half by exposure to light during loading; the camera didn't wind
on to frame 1.  The camera also took the last "frame" (the one with the
fingerprint) off the end of frame 24 but *overlapped* on the previous frame.
 It shouldn't have reset the shutter to allow the last image.  I'm not particularly
impressed by the Sea & Sea in this respect considering a cheap point and
shoot can do this, and the Sea & Sea costs over US$350 for the body.

> Regarding finger prints that are on the emulsion side.  Remove the film
> from the slide holder if its a slide, and the soak the film in warm 
> water with a drop or two of photoflo or equivalent, for up to half an

> hour.  The photoflo not only prevents spotting, but being a detergent,

> also breaks down some of the grease in the fingerprint.

I'll have to give this a try.  The last partial image actually has a whole
bunch of fish on it.  I should have bought a roll of 36!  I used negs since
the exposures underwater were likely to be extremely variable.  I'm having
problems with reds in the images; I suspect Fuji Superia 400 tends to oversaturate
reds when used with a flash.  I rescanned one frame using Vuescan 6.02 and
the reds are definitely more saturated with the current version of 7.x.

I've also learned that "autolevels" can do some really awful things including
highlighting grain if the colour balance in the image isn't "normal" daylight.

I think this is one film I'll have to make raw scans from so I can experiment
later with the best method of cropping.  Otherwise I'm going to spend forever
rescanning it!

Rob

Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

RE: filmscanners: Comparison of LS2000 and LS4000

[Shough, Dean]

>   Quite the color difference when enabling ROC ... which colors are
> more realistic??
>

Anybody just happen to have a 50 year old IT8 or Q60 slide?  Or a faded
photo that includes a known color test chart?  Anybody with a LS4000 that
could scan it?

RE: filmscanners: Comparison of LS2000 and LS4000

[shAf]

Collin writes ...

> http://www.starhk.com/peterpen/nikontest.htm
>
> Includes:
> - Sample scans from same frame using LS2000 and LS4000
> (not full res)
> - Sample using GEM/ROC
> - Pictures of the LS4000 internals
> - hand measured scan times with various features on/off

Thanx especially for the engineer's look inside  :o)

Quite the color difference when enabling ROC ... which colors are
more realistic??

Can you compare Vuescan's version of GEM against ASF's at full
resolution??

shAf  :o)

filmscanners: Fuji Xtra 800 and 400 settings for Vuescan?

[DRP]

Hi all

I'm going to try the new negative (with 4th layer) from Fuji : Xtra800, but
which settings should I use in Vuescan?

Further, I've read somewhere that the Xtra400 (also with 4th layer) is
nothing else than an "old" Superia400. I'm lost with Fuji marketing names
and their changes: Superia, new Superia, Xtra... So, second question, which
settings for the "Xtra400"?

Thanks for help!
Didier

filmscanners: Comparison of LS2000 and LS4000

[Collin Ong]

http://www.starhk.com/peterpen/nikontest.htm

Includes:
- Sample scans from same frame using LS2000 and LS4000 (not full res)
- Sample using GEM/ROC
- Pictures of the LS4000 internals
- hand measured scan times with various features on/off

filmscanners: VueScan Focus Position Was LS4000 and sharpness

[Bob Armstrong]

Rob wrote:

> > How about a +/- percentage either side of the center?  Zero would be the
> > middle.  A bit less confusing than 50.  A numeric scale would probably
> > be more easily understandable than a measurement in millimetres
> > (especially
> > for those in the States ;).


Or, to keep it consistent with the current Z plane focus it could have a range from -1 
to 1.

Bob

RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Laurie Solomon]

Art,

Interestingly, I have been finding that the length of the film leaders on
both ends of the film have gotten shorter and shorter as time has gone on.
There use to be enough leader to allow for three extra frames plus room to
put clips on the ends of the film; now in some cases there is hardly room to
have an extra frame and room for clips.  My understanding is that the
industry is attempting to save money in a competitive market by shortening
the amount of leader they provide under the justification that the current
batch of automatic everything cameras and processing do not require as much
leader as in the past where things were less sophisticated and more manual.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)




Rob Geraghty wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>
>> PEC 12 ONLY cleans grease- based stains. It does not clean water-
>> based stains. It will remove a fingerprint but not hard water
>> stains, for example. This point has not been made yet, so I
>> decided to add to this growing thread..
>
>
> FWIW I tried to remove a fingerprint from a film strip yesterday only to
> find that it's embedded in the emulsion.  The operator at the lab must
have
> put their fingerprint on the film while the emulsion was wet. :(  In their
> defense, it was right on the end of the film where an image *shouldn't*
> have been, but the camera had squeezed another image onto the end of the
> strip.  Hopefully I'll be able to remove the fingerprint with some careful
> use of the cloning tool.
>
> Rob
>

Every lab operates slightly differently in terms of how much film they
require to do their process, but unless one has a camera with a very
short canister lip to camera frame distance, there usually should be
enough to avoid ruining that 37th or even 38th image.  Most of the time
those extra frames come from the front of the roll, as some cameras, can
be loaded to not require the full "lead" the film manufacturer's provide.

My Nikon 801s (when it is working) gives me 37 images nearly every time.
  Some rare times I get 38, but that one is almost always bisected by
the lab.   My Nikon FE, however, always gave me 38 full frames and
occasionally 39, same lab.

Regarding finger prints that are on the emulsion side.  Remove the film
from the slide holder if its a slide, and the soak the film in warm
water with a drop or two of photoflo or equivalent, for up to half an
hour.  The photoflo not only prevents spotting, but being a detergent,
also beaks down some of the grease in the fingerprint.

Allow to completely dry before handling.  To dry individual 35mm film
frames, open a plastic coated paper clip to create the elongated "S"
shape, and put one hook through a socket hole, clipping the other with a
clothes pin or other device.

Art

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Joel Wilcox]

Konica Impresa 50 is quite good on sky IMHO.

Joel W.

>From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Slide film is generally less grainy than print film in scanning sky.  Have
>you found any good print film for sky?

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

RE: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness

[Shough, Dean]

> Ed wrote:
> > I'm thinking of adding a focus offset option, in millimeters, for the
> offset
> > from the center of the image.  I could alternatively add a focus
> > position (%) option, which would put the focus position some percentage
> > of the way into a frame (50% would be normal, 30% would move the
> > focus position near the edge of the frame).  I'm leaning towards the
> latter.
> 
> How about a +/- percentage either side of the center?  Zero would be the
> middle.  A bit less confusing than 50.  A numeric scale would probably
> be more easily understandable than a measurement in millimetres
> (especially
> for those in the States ;).
> 
> Rob
>

Yes, zero should be in the center, but is this the center of the slide or
the center of the scan region?  I would prefer the center of the scan
region.  Also should indicate on the preview  the location of the focus.
Maybe even have it adjustable there.

And then ...

Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Arthur Entlich]

Rob Geraghty wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> 
>> PEC 12 ONLY cleans grease- based stains. It does not clean water-
>> based stains. It will remove a fingerprint but not hard water
>> stains, for example. This point has not been made yet, so I
>> decided to add to this growing thread..
> 
> 
> FWIW I tried to remove a fingerprint from a film strip yesterday only to
> find that it's embedded in the emulsion.  The operator at the lab must have
> put their fingerprint on the film while the emulsion was wet. :(  In their
> defense, it was right on the end of the film where an image *shouldn't*
> have been, but the camera had squeezed another image onto the end of the
> strip.  Hopefully I'll be able to remove the fingerprint with some careful
> use of the cloning tool.
> 
> Rob
> 

Every lab operates slightly differently in terms of how much film they 
require to do their process, but unless one has a camera with a very 
short canister lip to camera frame distance, there usually should be 
enough to avoid ruining that 37th or even 38th image.  Most of the time 
those extra frames come from the front of the roll, as some cameras, can 
be loaded to not require the full "lead" the film manufacturer's provide.

My Nikon 801s (when it is working) gives me 37 images nearly every time. 
  Some rare times I get 38, but that one is almost always bisected by 
the lab.   My Nikon FE, however, always gave me 38 full frames and 
occasionally 39, same lab.

Regarding finger prints that are on the emulsion side.  Remove the film 
from the slide holder if its a slide, and the soak the film in warm 
water with a drop or two of photoflo or equivalent, for up to half an 
hour.  The photoflo not only prevents spotting, but being a detergent, 
also beaks down some of the grease in the fingerprint.

Allow to completely dry before handling.  To dry individual 35mm film 
frames, open a plastic coated paper clip to create the elongated "S" 
shape, and put one hook through a socket hole, clipping the other with a 
clothes pin or other device.

Art

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Arthur Entlich]

Steve,

Do you get a discount if the send the same message an even dozen times?

;-)

Don't know what the problem is/was, but I received this message 12 times.

Art

Steve Bye wrote:

> While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
> the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
> that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
> actually 640x480, or 4:3.

Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Slide film is generally less grainy than print film in scanning sky.  Have
you found any good print film for sky?

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "JimD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners


I'm fond of Supra 400 and use it a lot.
Recently I've also been shooting Provia 100F when
there is enough light. These films are apples
and oranges but Supra 400 is real 'chunky' compared to the
Provia. It is interesting to do a max zoom on a 4000 ppi file from
a 35 mm frame to see what the pixels look like up close.
Provia has much cleaner, uniform coloration among sets of
max zoomed pixels than the Supra 400 does.
This shows up in output in prints from the Provia being more
'sparkly' or 'luminous'.

It's kind of academic as I photograph dogs in available light so 100 speed
film is a significant hindrance in early and late light where I
find most of my interesting pictures.

Based on the results I'm getting with Provia I'll be using it more,
I'll just teach the dogs to be stationary.
-JimD

At 10:18 PM 4/28/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Maris wrote:
>
> > I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans
> > better than average but I would not consider it exceptional.
> > I still have
> > grain in blue skies and,
>
>My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no
>matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue
>channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film.
>Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI.
>
>Vlad
>
>
>---
>Odchozí  zpráva neobsahuje viry.
>Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
>Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness

[Rob Geraghty]

Ed wrote:
> I'm thinking of adding a focus offset option, in millimeters, for the
offset
> from the center of the image.  I could alternatively add a focus
> position (%) option, which would put the focus position some percentage
> of the way into a frame (50% would be normal, 30% would move the
> focus position near the edge of the frame).  I'm leaning towards the
latter.

How about a +/- percentage either side of the center?  Zero would be the
middle.  A bit less confusing than 50.  A numeric scale would probably
be more easily understandable than a measurement in millimetres (especially
for those in the States ;).

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Steve Bye]

While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen

[Steve Bye]

While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480,
the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means
that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is
actually 640x480, or 4:3.

The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan to
end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to
convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care of
converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe
Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically.

Steve Bye

> Maris
> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels
> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as an
RGB
> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 4/29/2001 6:45:19 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> That allows you to set the focus point but not in the way I meant.  In 
> Nikonscan
>  you can click on a point in the preview and use that as the focus point
>  for the focussing system.  So it's an XY location in the image not the Z
>  direction.  Ed may not have implemented it because AFAIK it's only 
available
>  in the Nikons.

I'm thinking of adding a focus offset option, in millimeters, for the offset
from the center of the image.  I could alternatively add a focus
position (%) option, which would put the focus position some percentage
of the way into a frame (50% would be normal, 30% would move the
focus position near the edge of the frame).  I'm leaning towards the latter.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 4/29/2001 6:33:12 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> But don't the Nikon scanners allow the user to choose an XY point on the
>  frame as the focussing point?

Yes, but I'm not sure how it uses the X point.  It might more heavily
weight the contrast at the X point, or it might limit the contrast computation
to an area around the X point.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick