Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Agfa is definitely softer, no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the results from the two scanners. A good test would be to turn off Device|Auto focus and manually vary the focus on the Nikon. This will give a good indication of whether the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
Bob.. Check out Personal Site Maker at: http://www.thegrid.net/sjpsoftware/psm/ If you dont hit the Clean Up button at the end of your creation, all the stuff is kept on your computer and it's perfect for burning onto a CD. A very versatile program for $20 USD (Shareware). Have a look at his (Steve Porter's) demo. Mike - Original Message - From: Bob Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 03:02 Subject: filmscanners: Viewing Software Dear all, I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly from the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package that I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? Bob Turner Dundee, Scotland, U.K. Website : www.bawbee.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
At 02:56 AM 6/11/01 EDT, Ed Hamrick wrote: Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the results from the two scanners. I disagree here, Ed. Here's why. It seems some scanner vendors (maybe all) implement internal trade-offs between noise and resolution. Sharpness and resolution can't be considered separately from noise, since the are inter-related. I did a round of tests on my Epson 1640SU (a flatbed touted by Epson as a film scanner also) and was thoroughly convinced that Epson's 1600 dpi claim was a sham. However... with enough USM, the Epson's output can be shown to contain much more detail than you might think. With the extra detail comes lots of noise, of course. I'm guessing that Epson traded off resolution for lower noise in this model. PS: the results of these tests (and scans from several medium-format film scanners) may be seen at: http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test2.htm You can see for yourself what I'm talking about -- download one of the JPGs from the 1640, and apply USM in Photoshop. The results may surprise you. rafe b.
filmscanners: Apologies
From what I can see, my illustrious ISP has managed to send multiple copies of several of my postings. I apologize from this problem. I think it has been fixed. I may fix it further in the next weeks or two, by changing ISP. Art
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
The original post asked about a comparison between the Olympus P-400 and the Epson 1280. Possibly, the subject line became truncated from the original, or maybe the original poster just tied out while writing the subject and didn't finish it ;-) Art John C. Jernigan wrote: Will someone please tell me what this thread has to do with the Olympus P-400 printer ???
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Agfa is definitely softer, no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the results from the two scanners. Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of noise, and perhaps that explains the difference between these scans. The LS-30 scan appears sharper initially, but after working on both files I would have to say first impressions are misleading, the sharpness seems to be an artifact. No matter how I sharpen the LS-30 scan, I can't get results that match the sharpened T-2500 scan for image detail and clarity, and tonal smoothness and sharpness of grain. A good test would be to turn off Device|Auto focus and manually vary the focus on the Nikon. This will give a good indication of whether the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. I don't question the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. The darkening (exaggeration) of the dust appears to be a function of the infrared channel however, as Rob points out. I have no problem with this either, as long as a dust removal algorithm takes care of it (it does), and I can use the scanner with all Kodachromes and BW film and get results as good or better as with a conventional design (I can't). I have the feeling that Nikon has addressed these problems in the new designs, but I would like to know how effectively before deciding on a next scanner purchase. Both the Polaroid 120 and Nikonscan 8000 appear to be excellent with a slight edge going to the Nikon perhaps. But is the Polaroid better for BW and Kodachrome work? Dave
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Epson printers (Was: Olympus P-400 printer ???)
James Hill wrote: The 2880 printing uses smaller steps by the stepper motor and actually does provide smoother tones in the mid to highlight end. The difference in 2880 and 1440 is really only visible under a loupe or if you regularly sniff prints, as I have been known to do.g At normal viewing distances the difference is not visible. 2880 printing will slow down the print speed considerably and probably uses a tiny bit more ink. I would use it for my Best work, for show or sale, but not for most of what I print on a daily basis. --James Hill I too noticed very minimal differences. It probably allows for more forgiving prints if you have a slightly clogged nozzle, and helps to prevent banding more. Overall it just seemed like me as a way to slow down the printers, with minimal return. This is more specsmanship to be bigger than the competitors then about improved image. Since current stepper motors continue to get cheaper and finer, its a no cost option for Epson, IMHO. Art
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
One effective solution for thoroughly cleaning slides that I use is to put them in a small sonicator bath filled with degassed water, with a small beaker or glass container filled with isopropanol. Place slide in beaker and sonicate briefly. I do this in a well ventilated area. Keep in mind that isopropanol is flammable. With a pair of fine forceps, remove slide, dip in a second change of ie. isopropanol and remount in slide holder (I use a GEPE glass mount from which I have removed the glass; slides sit acceptably flat). I use a SS4000 scanner and get good results. Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001/06/09 1:37:45 AM I have the Artixscan 4000T (same as SS4000) and dust is a big problem. The best solution is to put the film through the scanner before you do anything else with it. I currently have a box of slides that I have had for over a week and haven't even opened them because I want to take the lid off and scan them before the dust arrives! Older slides are just covered in the stuff - even if you have only taken them out of the box a couple of times. Worst of all seem to be the ones that have been back to several labs for re-printing - these just seem to pick up all sorts of muck. If you look at the archive of this list you'll see all sorts of solutions for dust removal before scanning. Ultimately you can expect to spend 5-10mins cloning out dust on an exceptionally clean slide. 2 hours is not unknown for a bad example. I don't know how well ICE would cope with the good or the bad examples, but I for one have better things to do. Some people round here say it's good for the soul. I say it's a FPITA and it can't be good for your eyes either. Steve - Original Message - From: Chris Hargens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast. Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service. Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal option like FARE or ICE would make a significant difference, since, according to what I've read, the SprintScan scans/read less dust, scratches, etc. than the Nikon systems. Chris - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer products and they wind up not being all that much better. the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution. possibly this may be a better combination anyway. i am a new to this film scanner business and hope more people respond with their opinions. thanks jim Arthur Entlich wrote: AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those produced via profiles and I am confused. In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor as your starting point for your adjustments? Obviously, some software has to used. I am trying to relate this to printing color negatives, which is within my experience. With this process, for any degree of efficiency, you have to start with color filtration commensurate with the film you are using. Marvin Demuth
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
Maris wrote: I take Ed's comment, that the goal is a *custom* base removal for that any particular film, and to make the image look as much like the original scene as possible, means making it look like the original as captured by that particular film, but not making it look like the original as a generic person would see it. Otherwise, the different mask settings for the different films would seem to be spurious. Conversly, i.e. the other side of the coin, is that one can use Default or Image as the original preview scan, and then use any one of the film-type profiles to alter the appearance of the picture, using the Scan Memory facility of Vuescan, regardless of what film you happened to be using that day (or in my case, what film Whomever happened to be using). :-) Seems to me, this gives an artistic photographer a lot more lattitude than just loading up the favorite film and banging away. Excuse me if I'm missing something here, but I've always thought that artistic expression was always enhanced by the artist's recognizing the value of Happy Accident. Nothing against total control (I envy it), but sometimes the suprise is better that our plans. Not always, of course, but sometimes. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
filmscanners: OT side comment (Was New Nikon performance, now dust
It would seem to me, reading this thread (and others), that the industry would be very well-served by contracting with a real-life scanner user to monitor this and other web-sites. Cost in dollars--relatively insignificant (who wouldn't accept a free scanner, updates, and a few hours of their time?). If I were a design engineer, like someone else on this list, I'd almost think it *essential* to listen to users (and I'm pleased to say, he does). If anyone on this list can make that happen for the other scanner and software companies, the industry will have a lot to thank you for. An old Cleveland baseball pitcher once said, Don't look back--someone might be gainin' on you. I can't think of another industry where that's more appropriate than it is here. Best regards--LRA -- On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:25:43 Dave King wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/10/2001 4:13:40 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The T-2500 scan (agfsnipVS) is a bit softer and flatter than the LS-30 scan (niksnipVS). After sharpening and correcting tone on both scans, I thought the T-2500 scan rendered image detail slightly better than the LS-30 (maybe), but these files not sent as Ed requested only the default result. You need to show the .tif files, not the .jpg files. The .jpg files are full of jpeg artifacts. It's best to put these on a web site instead of e-mailing them to this list. In spite of this, it appears clear that the T-2500 doesn't focus as well as the Nikon scan, and this is most of the reason that the dust spots are different. Regards, Ed Hamrick Ed, as you know by now I've sent you tiffs of slightly larger crops directly. The crops have more image detail areas which help me make comparisons of image detail rendering. The Agfa is definitely softer, no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Now the Nikon scan is interesting in that if I apply the same amount of sharpening it looks oversharpened to me, with more chunky and coarse grain than in the sharpened Agfa scan. It appears to me that the LED light source (or is it the infrared channel, or both?) is at least partially responsible for the increased raw sharpness and grain. Nikonscan's ICE has the effect of decreasing sharpness a bit, and Nikonscan's default sharpening has the effect of bringing sharpness back to approximately the original level with no ICE, but of course with less dust etc than either of the raw scans. Anyway, if I tweak and correct both files in PS as well as possible, each according to individual requirements, the differences between them are reduced quite a bit, and most telling to me, the corrected Agfa scan will often exhibit greater image detail, grain sharpness, and smoothness than the corrected Nikon scan. I would be happy to post these tiffs to a web site for others to see and play with, but someone would have to volunteer the space. Dave King Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
filmscanners: OT: Device recognition, Win 98
I just discovered that what I'd said about my computer recognizing SCSI devices (viz my Acer Scanwit) without a warm boot does *not* apply to my USP port and HP 6300C. It *definitely* requires a re-boot to be recognized, if it is off-line at first boot-up. This is not terribly important to the World View Of Things, but I saw so many different opinions and versions of what needed rebooting and what didn't, that I thought I would mention it. So it goes. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only approximate too. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost certainly was not-quite-standard at all. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On 07 Jun 2001 12:15:41 EDT Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The sin is that Mac has abandoned scsi, not to mention serial. It makes upgrading while using your old peripherals a pain. My old Mac will drive an Acer and I hope I can find the cash to buy one soon. I'd not be too quick to blame the Mac entirely - the Acer card is weird in not requiring termination at the scanner (and Acer don't provide any), which suggests it's not true SCSI spec. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:41:28 -0400 Phil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If I can get the 2740S to WORK with Vuescan then I WON'T have to return the scanner and I can hopefully regain some measure of credibility over here at work- people have seem me blow all my circuits here these past two days! It's humorous and sad too. Oh dear. Welcome to the cutting-edge world of digital imaging :) Don't take it personally, and it's not just a Mac thing, a SCSI thing, or even an Acer thing - it goes with the territory. Hands up anyone who has invariably installed something and had it work first time. Even 'eventually' is ahead of the curve and a step closer to Buddhahood. You think this is bad, just wait until you buy a printer - there's a whole industry and cast of thousands involved in getting them to perform properly. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 05:34:03 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Try the Adaptec 2906 for under $50. Works great for me with my Minolta Scan Dual on both my old PowerBase 180 and on my newer G4/500. I don't know about Mac, but the cheapo Adaptec 2904CD SCSI card (sold for interfacing CDR's for ~29GBP, so probably $30US) works absolutely fine with filmscanners on a PC. The 'CD' bit is marketing nonsense, to try and persuade you to spend more. It's a bog standard PCI PnP SCSI2 card with no boot ROM. No prosumer filmscanner needs anything faster, nor will they scan any quicker. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? How do you propose to transpose the colour and density values of the film to RGB bit values? The film has its characteristics, so does the scanner. Either you use profiles, which maintain a fixed relationship between input and output, or you adjust the scanning process to get the result you want, or you do a mixture of both. The adjustment can be hardwired and beyond user control, or under user control via software settings, or a mixture of both. In other words, you don't have to use profiles but you do have to do /something/ - and if you cannot, the decisions have already been made for you by the mfr. But you cannot dodge the necessity. And people do it all the time in the darkroom by choosing paper and chemistry characteristics and varying filtration and exposure. LATER Just seen your later wry comment that 'I am the colour management':-) Well, I agree with that approach but it takes a lot of time and skill to get it right as you can find yourself juggling many different parameters. EG crossed curves can be real brain-ache, and hard to identify and fix (is this shadow cast blue, cyan, or bluey-cyan or cyan-blue?). I think DH is proposing a ring-around set of corrections from which the user chooses the one that looks most plausible, implemented as profiles. This seems potentially quite a useful aid for the operator, especially the less skilled/more impatient, and may help get images in the ballpark. Vuescan's use of automatic white balance aims at the same place, as does using PS highlight dropper to achieve the same thing - you just use whatever tools you feel comfortable with. The Mk1 eyeball is the only final arbiter. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Hazy bleed in hi contrast blacks on LS2000
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 05:06:21 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The scans have all got a hazy halo round all the bright areas such that on an A4 print there is about 15 - 20mm around the bright area which is less than total black. Sounds like flare, from dust/oil/water on the lens. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor as your starting point for your adjustments? First, I set the setpoints (darkest black and whitest white), then I invert the image (you can do the inversion first if you want). Then I adjust the tonal curves. That's it. I really can't relate it to darkroom work, sorry...perhaps someone else can?
RE: filmscanners: OT advertising footers
Lynn Allen always includes ... ... Get 250 color bus_ness cards for FRE_! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ ... I have absolute no objection to such footers ... quite innocuous really, but I thought you ought to be made aware ... my e-mail client checks for keywords (which I crippled above), and all your e-mail shows up flagged in hot pink. I choose it to be flagged, but many others will configure their software to send such e-mails straight to trash directory. I do realize you must have little control over the footers, but I still thought you should know. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost certainly was not-quite-standard at all. Note necessarily. Many scanners have auto termination built into their twin connectors (inside the box). Which allows you to simply connect the cable and leave the other SCSI connector open. I think most devices have built in termination so that the hap hazard users won't blow their SCSI cards, or motherboards (in the case of Apple). Either this, or they gave you a terminator, which was a small 50 pin plug-in device that had two L.E.D.s on it. In any event, you don't want to leave a SCSI bus unterminated. Ever. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Somewhat OT:was Scanning 101...A basic question...
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:43 Marvin Demuth wrote: I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those produced via profiles and I am confused. In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor as your starting point for your adjustments? Obviously, some software has to used. I am trying to relate this to printing color negatives, which is within my experience. With this process, for any degree of efficiency, you have to start with color filtration commensurate with the film you are using. = Confusion is part of the process, certainly in my experience! :-) I don't know what scanner you're using; that's important. Using profiles can be confusing, and with the help of a few Filmscanners, I've learned what they are about. What they are about is mainly concerned with going from one medium from another, or one device to another. Since you're going for prints, they *are* important. Real Life Photoshop is a book that details the various choices of Color Management about as well as anything I've seen. Your library or favorite bookstore should have this book. When you're working with color negs, Raw scans can be (and are) intimidating. In the first place, they're backwards, so you normally have to Invert them to see what you're looking at. When you do that, you have little idea of what the carrier medium (the film itself) has done to you, or your picture. I've found that Adjust/Auto Levels in Photoshop does a remarkable job of bringing the picture back 'round to where you thought it should be. Not perfect--you'll have to tweak it--but good. The recent thread about 120 film profiling was very informative about what happens when you scan an image. If you're scanning Raw images into your editing software (Photoshop, PicturePerfect, or whatever), you need to either have some idea about what the scene looked like at the time, what it *should* have looked like, or what you *want* it to look like. That The Camera Never Lies is no longer true (cf Michael Crichton's Rising Sun). The camera, coupled with the software you have or can make available, will say almost anything you're capable of making it say! Beyond that, refer back a few msgs to what Ed Hamric had to say about how Vuescan deals with film, images, defaults, etc. Very informative. Filmscanning is neither Rocket Science nor a Perfect Science. It's fun, it's interesting, it's on the Edge. And for those doing it for a living--it keeps them on their toes and makes them better persons! ;-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:13:30 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) Not for more than a few minutes. And it's very cruel of you to ask this g Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:18:54 -0400 Michael Creem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. Michael Correct. 620 spools have a narrow solid metal core, about 3/16 diameter. You can respool 120 yourself if you have some 620 spools, a darkroom and are sufficiently bored with easy stuff like scanning. I still have my Box Brownie 620 here g Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:48:17 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) If you compare collimated vs. diffuse heads on an enlarger (ie all else remains the same), the result on my Durst is about +1 grade harder from the condenser head. There is no perceptible difference in image sharpness at all, even using a loupe, but apparent image sharpness is enhanced by greater contrast. You don't get any more information off the film. However you *do* get genuinely sharper, better defined and uglier images of dust and scratches from collimated light. I can only resolve this paradox by thinking that the 3d nature of such cack is the origin of the difference. Relative to film grains, detritus and dust and scratches have significant depth and size. Illuminated from all angles, the diffuser case, tends to mask them (soft light), whereas collimated light shows them up magnificently. Film grains and clumps are relatively minute, so exhibit little real loss of definition, but manifest it as lowered contrast across the image. IME this is also true of the Nikon LED lightsource, but to a lesser degree. All filmscanners I've ever used have an alarming propensity to hallucinate rubbish which vanishes in a diffuser enlarger head, but the Nikons do elevate gunge discovery to an artform. TBH I think this means there's *lots* of scope for scanner lightbox design improvement, to give a proper diffused source. IME they just shine a tube through the film and aren't all that diffuse at all. But such old tech tricks have been outmoded by software ;) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:39:48 -0700 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? The odd thing is that this doesn't happen - at least no more than printing on a harder grade of paper provides. I did this some years ago: match the image contrast and you cannot see any difference even using a magnifier (same lens, same neg, same enlarger, different head). You do get less cack showing up from the diffuse head though. I put the condenser head away in a box as a result of this test, and it has stayed there ever since. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
Marvin Demuth wrote: I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those produced via profiles and I am confused. In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor as your starting point for your adjustments? Obviously, some software has to used. I am trying to relate this to printing color negatives, which is within my experience. With this process, for any degree of efficiency, you have to start with color filtration commensurate with the film you are using. Marvin Demuth I think Marvin makes an obvious but very significant point here. A raw scan of a negative, should be negative, not positive. Any manner of converting it into a positive means some type of profile has been actuated on it. Art
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only approximate too. I've generally found those film-type profiles (not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Dave King wrote: Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of noise, and perhaps that explains the difference between these scans. The LS-30 scan appears sharper initially, but after working on both files I would have to say first impressions are misleading, the sharpness seems to be an artifact. No matter how I sharpen the LS-30 scan, I can't get results that match the sharpened T-2500 scan for image detail and clarity, and tonal smoothness and sharpness of grain. First off, please excuse the many typos and grammatical errors in posts of the other day. I had no internet service for 3 days and then had to deal with a barrage of mail, and I was up until 4 AM answering them, as well, some personally quite stressful situations came up as well, just to keep the pot stirred. I'm a bit more rested now, and might even be able to type a coherent posting or two... I have a few ideas in regard to the issues of sharpness. Has Nikon added unsharp masking to their scan? Before everyone jumps on me stating that the Nikon scan is pure and unadulterated and raw, let me qualify my statement. If Nikon found a way to do unsharp masking that was not in firmware code or their software interface/driver could it still me called sharpening? Isn't in fact true that the LED light source itself does a type of edge sharpening? Could the use of certain cut off, trim, or bias filters in the electronics actually sharpen an image? Is it possible the reason the Nikon can't be further sharpened without more artifacts be because it is being optimized in some other manner than through software? I don't question the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. The darkening (exaggeration) of the dust appears to be a function of the infrared channel however, as Rob points out. I have no problem with this either, as long as a dust removal algorithm takes care of it (it does), and I can use the scanner with all Kodachromes and BW film and get results as good or better as with a conventional design (I can't). David, would you be kind enough to post the same two images that you did previously, but this time using the unsharp masking you feel best glorifies the Agfa scan. What I'm wanting to see, is how the dust and dirt responds to that processing in software. Do we end up with very similar dust and dirt in both after sharpening? Also, I want to see the overall tonal ranges you refer to. I have the feeling that Nikon has addressed these problems in the new designs, but I would like to know how effectively before deciding on a next scanner purchase. Both the Polaroid 120 and Nikonscan 8000 appear to be excellent with a slight edge going to the Nikon perhaps. But is the Polaroid better for BW and Kodachrome work? The issue of Kodachrome and BW with Nikon probably cannot be addressed easily. Unless Nikon has developed a way to lessen the native sharpening that normally occurs, or ASF has developed a new way to deal with the IR scan (or the IR scan methods have been altered), I don't know of any way to make BW or certain Kodachrome dye sets to become IR transparent. Art Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
I worked for nearly a year with an unterminated SCSI bus (card-to-Acer, nothing out) with no problems that I could recognize. After I started having unexplainable (and unreproducible) problems, I bought and installed a terminator for about $30 US. I would not swear so in court, but the terminator *might* have helped. Or it might not have--I'm not sure how one tells the difference. For my apps, it was very slight. Best regards--LRA Best regards--LRA -- On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:40:09 Richard N. Moyer wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost certainly was not-quite-standard at all. Note necessarily. Many scanners have auto termination built into their twin connectors (inside the box). Which allows you to simply connect the cable and leave the other SCSI connector open. I think most devices have built in termination so that the hap hazard users won't blow their SCSI cards, or motherboards (in the case of Apple). Either this, or they gave you a terminator, which was a small 50 pin plug-in device that had two L.E.D.s on it. In any event, you don't want to leave a SCSI bus unterminated. Ever. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: OT advertising footers
Hi, shAf-- You're right, I have absolutely no control over what my mail service does to my messages. I *DO* have a measure of control over what message service I use, OTOH, and Lycos is soon to be History. :-) Thanks for pointing out the vagaries of commercial mail-boxes to one and all. I suspected it wasn't My Own True Love from the very beginning, but tried to give them a chance. So much for trying to be fair. ;-) Best regards--LRA -- On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:10:52 shAf wrote: Lynn Allen always includes ... ... Get 250 color bus_ness cards for FRE_! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ ... I have absolute no objection to such footers ... quite innocuous really, but I thought you ought to be made aware ... my e-mail client checks for keywords (which I crippled above), and all your e-mail shows up flagged in hot pink. I choose it to be flagged, but many others will configure their software to send such e-mails straight to trash directory. I do realize you must have little control over the footers, but I still thought you should know. shAf :o) Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Rafe wrote: I've generally found those film-type profiles (not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. Photoshop also has no film profiles, and also does a good job of inverting a negative image. Is it White Point, Balance, or what? Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the staple of high end scanners for over 10 years. What questions did you have?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, though my experience with chromes in recent years has been limited. OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer professional processing labs, either, and my subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why are those negative-film profiles so consistently clueless? rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the staple of high end scanners for over 10 years. The 8000 ED gives it a nice run for the money, Austin. I dare say -- it's even better. Though I don't expect you'll agree, without some convincing. I'd have to see a BW scan comparison, that's what matters to me ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
- Original Message - From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, though my experience with chromes in recent years has been limited. OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer professional processing labs, either, and my subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why are those negative-film profiles so consistently clueless? rafe b. Good question, I can't say I know the answer. Perhaps it's because processing varies so much in the real world, and that would make Tony right and me wrong. I suppose the standards of NYC pro labs have spoiled me and warped my perspective on these things. g Dave
RE: filmscanners: OT: Device recognition, Win 98
This reminds me, after reading the first part of this thread, I tried to power on my SprintScan 35LE and refresh the device list in Device Manager. Yes, the SprintScan showed up, but upon launching PolaColor Insight the software could not detect an active scanner on the system. Sorry, I am incredibly new and ignorant to film scanning, but are there other software packages for gathering images with the SprintScan? (VueScan, right?) Thanks, Jared Dilg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT: Device recognition, Win 98 I just discovered that what I'd said about my computer recognizing SCSI devices (viz my Acer Scanwit) without a warm boot does *not* apply to my USP port and HP 6300C. It *definitely* requires a re-boot to be recognized, if it is off-line at first boot-up. This is not terribly important to the World View Of Things, but I saw so many different opinions and versions of what needed rebooting and what didn't, that I thought I would mention it. So it goes. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
