Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available
I just scanned about 20 negative frames I took about 25 years ago in Zurich - they're looking good. Thanks. And I'm very pleased that you've separated the 'ice' and 'gem' features. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:53 AM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available | I just released VueScan 7.1.2 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. | It can be downloaded from: | | http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html | | What's new in version 7.1.2 | | * Improved color and tone when scanning negatives | | I'm pretty sure this fixes a lot of the problems people have | been seeing with negative scans looking flat or dull. You'll | probably still need to experiment with Color|Gamma and | Color|White point (%) or to do some Photoshop manipulation, | but it should be a lot better. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick |
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Hey let's keep this clean and vaguely accurate even if it is OT... My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. I am another engineer(!) (not that this is relevant to reading a manufacturer's spec) and LEDs don't have MTBFs of 1000 hours! One of the great advantages of using LEDs in a scanner is the enormous lifespan of the light source... this was also the original driver for the mooted LED enlarger lamp that you have been discussing - lifespan *and* the consistency of light i.e. unchanging spectral characteristics. In fact the MTBF of ordinary boring nothing special LEDs is around 100x your stated figure and good ones (presumably like those used in scanners) are 1000x. I quote from the first google-located site I found... If packaged properly, LEDs emit light for a much longer time period than almost every other alternative light source technology. ... The mean time between failure (MTBF) of high quality LEDs properly packaged, is on the order of millions of hours. Or this second site I found... The long term dependability of Precision Optical Performance AlInGaP LED lamps is an important consideration for those who specify LED traffic signals and LED variable message signs (VMS). Precision Optical Performance LED Lamps are T-1 3 /4 plastic package devices that exhibit a nominal Mean Time Between (possible catastrophic) Failure, MTBF, greater than 1.2 million hours at the operating temperature of +74°C (+165°F). At operating temperatures below 0°C (32°F), MTBF is in excess of 10 million hours. Therefore, MTBF need not be a concern. Let's say the first LED dies in my scanner after 1/10 th of its MTBF, then I'll get 100,000 hours out of it or 50 years if I use the scanner 5 hours a day. Not bad eh! (Caveat - this was an example only - I don't know what the figure is for the actual LEDs used in Nikon scanners, but I am sure it is a lot higher than 1000hours). Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN : PLEASE READ : MAIL BOUNCES
At 08:19 PM 6/21/01, you wrote: PLEASE will subscribers to the list and digest take care to empty their POP3 mailboxes often enough to ensure consistent delivery of mails from this list. And in fact anywhere else...PLEASE CLEAR YOUR MAILBOXES OF READ MESSAGES WHILE I STILL HAVE SOME HAIR Tony, you are a very, very patient list owner. Hopefully, EVERYONE WILL TAKE NOTE OF YOUR REQUEST. We appreciate the service you provide and all that you do. Marvin Demuth
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Austin Franklin wrote: My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours. Aside from having written and reviewed quite a few MTBF and MTTR studies on designs that included LEDS, I recently replaced 4 of the 6 LEDs in my radio/CD/Cassette in my 1989 Range Rover, so I DO know they do burn out. 1000 hours MTBF can't be right, Austin. Optocouplers and fiberoptics are ubiquitous these days, and that figure would imply a rate of failure that's totally out of line with reality. Hell, the entire telecom industry is built on fiberoptics these days, and the transmitters are always LEDs of some sort. Virtually every single (modern) mechanical actuator these days is either stepper driven or DC-servo driven, and the latter type usually use quadrature-encoded OPTICAL position sensors. (Eg., any inkjet printer made by Epson, Lexmark, or HP uses optical encoding for the carriage position.) Just one example from among tens of thousands, and maybe a few hundred that I could cite. The sender in the optocoupler is a LED (two of 'em, for quadrature encoding.) I'd believe 100,000 hours MTBF, maybe, but clearly it'll be a function of several variables -- mostly the operating current. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN : PLEASE READ : MAIL BOUNCES
Re: Tony's message Is it possible to have an idea of any idea of what the limits are likely to be for how many messages can be held in the mailbox? That way it can be determined whether it is necessary to unsubscribe when away for a couple of days. Burt
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin, Yeah, me too, that's why I have that info. The one I have in front of me is VCC, and it's called the ClipLite and the CubeLite. Red, amber, green, blue, yellow and clear. For 3mm and 5mm LEDs. What company made those filters? - I'd like to look up the details (I have an extensive electronics data library going back about thirty years that includes a very large amount of optoelectronics). I'm familiar with VCC, having spec'd their products many times over the years. The early blue (and green) lenses were intended for use with small incandescent bulbs with the same T1-3/4 form-factor that was adopted by LED manufacturers, not for use with LEDs. Here's the type: http://www.abclights.com/midflant134.html My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours. Aside from having written and reviewed quite a few MTBF and MTTR studies on designs that included LEDS, I recently replaced 4 of the 6 LEDs in my radio/CD/Cassette in my 1989 Range Rover, so I DO know they do burn out. Some of your recent statements of technical fact seem to be casting a bit of a shadow on your own credentials as an engineer; once again here are sites with valid data: http://ftp.agilent.com/pub/semiconductor/led_lamps/abi018.pdf http://www.uniroyalopto.com/aenmlife.html http://www.wch.com/led.htm http://www.safe.no/various/ledline.html MTBF of an LED is wholly dependent upon power dissipation, current (in pulse applications) and/or operating temperature. An MTBF figure of 100,000 hours is more the norm for LEDs operated within their specified limits, with many times that possible when the LED is run below rated power or pulse maximums. Cliff Ober
filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall?
Anyone know why the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 went through a recall recently? Ian
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
I am another engineer(!) (not that this is relevant to reading a manufacturer's spec) and LEDs don't have MTBFs of 1000 hours! The one catalog I pulled off my shelf gave that figure. It seemed inordinately low to me, but it certainly was 1000. the consistency of light i.e. unchanging spectral characteristics. That has nothing to do with even illumination, which is different than consistent illumination. In fact the MTBF of ordinary boring nothing special LEDs is around 100x your stated figure Whose did you find had that? Lumex stated 10,000 hours, which is 10x the original source I quoted. If packaged properly, LEDs emit light for a much longer time period than almost every other alternative light source technology. ... The mean time between failure (MTBF) of high quality LEDs properly packaged, is on the order of millions of hours. We don't know what LEDs the Nikon scanner uses, nor will we unless someone either takes their scanner apart, or buys a spare LED array. The original point was that they do have a life span, as anything does. The claim was that the LEDs in the Nikon are permanent, and I do not believe they are. They may be for some people's use, but for others, it will be an item that they will probably have to replace over the usable life of the scanner.
filmscanners: Slightly OT - Anyone using an Epson 1640 with Win2k
Is anyone using an Epson 1640 Photo with Windows 2000? If so, how did you get the Twain to install? Please reply off list. Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm very pleased that you've separated the 'ice' and 'gem' features. Seconded! I was intrigued to find that the ICE feature was a binary option. Earlier versions of Vuescan gave me the impression that it was a variable effect. Rob
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours. Aside from having written and reviewed quite a few MTBF and MTTR studies on designs that included LEDS, I recently replaced 4 of the 6 LEDs in my radio/CD/Cassette in my 1989 Range Rover, so I DO know they do burn out. 1000 hours MTBF can't be right, Austin. I'm only going by what the catalog says, and I didn't write it. Stanley LED catalog, p. 24: Operating Life JIS C 7035 Ta=25C, IF=Max, t=1000Hrs. It very clearly says 1000. The Lumex web site says their Life Test is 10,000 hours, which sounds a lot better. Your scanner should have a cited MTBF and MTTR, what are they?
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN : PLEASE READ : MAIL BOUNCES
Tony, does your list account allow the use of 'procmail filtering? Or something of that ilk. I could knock up a script that filters the bounces and does something practical with them - (dump em, put them in a file, put them in another mailbox, parse them for a return path ... etc) bert
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 15:25 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? Yes Stuart Art
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall?
Ian, There has not been a recall on the SS120 on a worldwide basis.I do know we had a language issue on the CD's used in Europe and had to hold shipments for a patch CD. If I find anythig further I will advise. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Ian Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 9:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall? Anyone know why the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 went through a recall recently? Ian
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Julian Robinson wrote: Hey let's keep this clean and vaguely accurate even if it is OT... Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000 hour MTBF figure. Having designed many circuits and systems around HP LED displays, optocouplers, fiberoptic transceivers, etc., I was troubled by that number. HP is now Agilent. Check out www.semiconductor.agilent.com and do a quick search using the search phrase LED reliability The first PDF I found cites a particular type of LED, used in highway warning signs, with a MTBF of 1.5 million hours (before catastrophic failure). For simple aging, the paper cites 100,000 hours of operation before a 25% reduction in light output. A second paper gives mildly contradictory data. This one (discussing LEDs for instrument cluster lighting) gives 10 million hours MTFB (catastrophic failure) and 50,000 hours of operation before a 75% reduction in output. Either way, I think most of us won't have to worry much about LEDs failing in our Nikon scanners. The scanners will be long obsolete before the LEDs die. 2000 hours is roughly a year's worth of work- days (weekdays) at 8 hours per day. I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix the potholes in your driveway, Austin, or get new shock absorbers for that beast. rafe b.
filmscanners: cd making question
Hi, I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can do this. Thanks! Jules Jules http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Jules/index.html
filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 vs. Nikon 3.1 ICE and GEM!!!
Hello, I am curious to know if anyone has tested the latest Nikon software, version 3.1 with the newest VueScan 7.1.2; I think that VueScan is indeed better than Nikon sw also about the ICE and GEM color restoration and scratch removal Any feedback of sample to show? Cheers; Andrea -- Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum http://www.alinari.com The world's oldest picture library tel: +39-055-2395201 fax: +39-055-2382857
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
LOL Lawrence I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix the potholes in your driveway, Austin, or get new shock absorbers for that beast. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: cd making question
Jules, Are these CD's for archiving purposes, or just to run a slide show? Do you want the thumbnails to open the full size images when clicked on? It sounds like you want to create a web site that will run off a CD. It can be activated through autorun or from a splash screen that appears when you put the CD in. It's a two part process. Design the web site on your local machine and use an autorun program to burn it to a CD. I have a good autorun program that I use from: http://www.pollensoftware.com/autorun/index.html You also might try some of the CD software, like EZCD from Roxio: http://www.roxio.com/index.jhtml Larry I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Skin tones
The result of the changes that Ed made to produce Vuescan 7.1.2 can be seen here. http://www.littlebarn.com/test/index.htm Minor mods in PS creates a beautiful end result Thanks John Bradbury - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Skin tones In a message dated 6/18/2001 1:42:44 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The result compared to Nikonscan 3.1 can be seen at http://www.littlebarn.com/test/index.htm After autolevel and curve correction in Photoshop I get an image from Vuescan that is better than Nikon Scan. Question to Ed: would it be possible to achieve the end result without going through PS? The reason the image is too dark is that you have bright sky in the background, and VueScan is preserving detail in the sky (it's blue in the first VueScan result and white in the other results). Increase Color|White point (%) to get more brightness in the foreground, possibly to 2 to 5%. Experiment with reducing Color|Gamma to improve the color and skin tones. These two things should let you reproduce your Photoshop results. If you e-mail me the raw scan file for this image, I'll look into whether there's something I can do in VueScan to make this improved contrast be the default (I may have something incorrect in the default contrast that's used when generic film type or restore colors is used). (You can produce a raw scan file by turning on the Files|Output raw file option.) Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: cd making question
On windows Set up a html file in the root directory to show the files (assume it is called index.html for this example) then create an autorun.inf file in the root directory of the CD with the following lines: [autorun] OPEN=start.exe index.html This will automatically start explorer with the file index.html. Steve - Original Message - From: cjcronin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: filmscanners: cd making question Hi, I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can do this. Thanks! Jules Jules http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Jules/index.html
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
John B. wrote: I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice. LOL I'm glad to see (by the subject line) that I wasn't the one who *started* this thread, but it's gratifying to see that several threads are coming 'round to the same point of view, i.e. that quality is often in the eye of the beholder, but quantifiable detail is increased with the format. Tony calls them rail cameras, I think of them as view cameras, but we're talking about the same thing--the big Calumets etc. that do such beautiful work and were the standard for magazine covers, full-spreads and art photography as little as 30 years ago. I think I know what Dan is talking about in regards to image sharpness, clarity, etc., although I ordinarily sense it rather than see it. Is this achievable in prints, using digital technology? No, not *today* it isn't, but the gap narrows every day. What's more likely to happen, is a jump in technology, maybe a digital screen that fits into a thin frame on the wall and changes the picture with the click of a button. It isn't here yet, but it will be. Will it be as clear and/or luminous as a projected slide? Possibly. The standards have been set, but not met. IMHO what is more important is the content, What is being said rather than How it's being said. This isn't always ironclad--architectural and landscape photography rely a lot on the How. For my part, I knew early-on I wasn't going to be a great photographer, so when I got a good picture I'd translate it into a painting, where I could handle the How with better control to give the What what it needed. Does that make sense? A scanner is a tool, like a camera is a tool, as a brush is a tool. Some tools are undoubtably better than others to do certain tasks. But the parable that really tells all about it is The Man Who Won Fishing Tournaments. When asked what bait he used to catch so many prize-winning bass, the old man answered with a smile, A pickle. The reporter could not believe this answer, so he accompanied The Champ on a fishing excursion. The Champ, true to his word, rigged up a pickle on his line and cast it about 35 yards, then retrieved it. 40 feet from the boat, a humongous bass took the pickle-bait, and it turned out to be another tournament winner. When people asked the reporter about it, he just said, Hell, the way that fella worked that pickle, he could have put ANYTHING on that hook and caught a fish! Andreas Feininger said some of his best pictures were taken with a cardboard box camera. It's not so much what you use, IMHO, it's the way that you use it. From there on, it's how you refine what you do. Best regards--LRA ++ From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:42:58 -0400 on 6/19/01 5:30 PM, rafeb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms of enlargement) with 35 mm film. Sure, you can blow it up to almost any size you want, but the same image on a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print. Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras, and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that. warning: this is a long and slippery slope! I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Line on SS4000 scanning
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:38:17 -0700 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Yesterday after I had scanned a slide, I noticed a very narrow light colored line going the length of the scan. It is probably about one third of the way into the image. Today, I scanned a black and white negative and it has a black line in it. Can anyone give me any insights what may be causing this and what my options are? Almost certainly a speck of dust on the CCD surface - not a problem I have yet had with a SS4000, but have had with 2 different flatbeds. Try using an aerosol air-duster like Dust-off. Be *very* careful to keep the can upright and level, so as not to squirt liquid propellant into the scanner. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, convenient, as the instant films used to be. I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall?
Ian Jackson wrote: Anyone know why the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 went through a recall recently? Ian Maybe because Vuescan blew too many of them up? THIS IS A JOKE == At least Polaroid does recalls, unlike some companies I can think of. This is NOT a joke Art
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Raphael Bustin wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Julian Robinson wrote: Hey let's keep this clean and vaguely accurate even if it is OT... Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000 hour MTBF figure. Oh, what's a few orders of magnitude amongst engineers, anyway? ;-) I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix the potholes in your driveway, Austin, or get new shock absorbers for that beast. What type of display is used in things like VCR, tape deck and microwave displays? It looks like it is almost a type of gas plasma/fluorescent type of thing. Many of my older devices with those type of displays now have considerable and uneven loss of brightness. I sort of recall LEDs having pretty poor reliability many moons ago, when they were mainly seen in NASA spacecraft, those large wrist watches and Texas Instrument calculators, but I think 30 years has had it's effect upon the design, eh? Art
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin Franklin wrote: My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours. Aside from having written and reviewed quite a few MTBF and MTTR studies on designs that included LEDS, I recently replaced 4 of the 6 LEDs in my radio/CD/Cassette in my 1989 Range Rover, so I DO know they do burn out. 1000 hours MTBF can't be right, Austin. Didn't the word humility crop up in a message I sent you about a year ago? ;-) Also, I'm guessing LEDs made in 1987-88, when your Range Rover was likely put together, were not the same ones used today, about 12 years later I'm only going by what the catalog says, and I didn't write it. Stanley LED catalog, p. 24: I never met a Stanley parts catalogue I couldn't trust ;-) ;-) Operating Life JIS C 7035 Ta=25C, IF=Max, t=1000Hrs. Austin, this is why it sometimes is helpful to engage your obviously very capable brain rather than relying totally on written fact. I'm sure given a little thought, you'd have recognized the silliness of the 1000 hr number, considering how often we replace incandescent household light bulbs. (then again, lately companies like GE seem to be happy with 100 hr bulbs or ones that just fail on power up, by that's another matter). Can you imagine what problems in equipment failures would exist if LEDs lasted on average 1000 hr only? I think Rafe gave some good examples of the huge number of devices we use which rely upon LEDs to sense locations, positioning, actuation or switching (how about most computer mouses, for instance). Tell you one thing, I'm not buying any Stanley LEDs! (they must have gotten a great buy on these!) ;-) It very clearly says 1000. The Lumex web site says their Life Test is 10,000 hours, which sounds a lot better. I also expect, like incandescents and other illumination sources, LEDs can be built to different specs and be run under different electronic designs. For instance, I know that with the halogen bulbs used in projectors, a 25 hr bulb will last only 5-11 hours run at 125-130 volts, will last 11-19 hours run at 120-125 volts, they last upwards of 19-31 hrs run at 115-120 and if you use a dimmer to bring them down to about 105-110, they will last well over 50 hours, or nearly one order of magnitude from running at 125-130 volts. Your scanner should have a cited MTBF and MTTR, what are they? Yes, that would be interesting, if they consider the light source separately, and not the whole unit. Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 13:52 22/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, convenient, as the instant films used to be. Art- I live in Scotland which is hardly the most liberated of countries -believe me -and it is relatively easy to get film processed but I appreciate what you say about digital avoiding any potential problems in this area. I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. I would be supplying websites so I probably wouldnt need to produce prints etc . I would know before the shoot if the output was intended for ,say magazines, so would shoot transparencies ,if that was the case Stuart Art
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000 hour MTBF figure. I don't know quite what you meant by that comment. It comes across that you believe I am somehow making up the 1000 hour number I cited? Why on earth would I do that? Here is the product spec I got that information from: http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/StanleyLEDTestData.jpg The sheet says that 1000 Hrs. is what they GUARANTEE for Operating Life given the test conditions they state. That's what any designer is going to design it to unless they do their own MTBF tests. There is no doubt that there are LEDs available that (according to the manufacturers) have far longer MTBF, but since no one here knows what LEDs Nikon used, we don't know what the MTBF for the LEDs Nikon used is. You can cite all the specs you want, but unless you cite the spec for that LED Nikon used you really don't know. Do you know that the MTBF numbers you cited, were for a similar type of LED that would be used by the Nikon? I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix the potholes in your driveway, Austin, or get new shock absorbers for that beast. It's a Range Rover, the shocks are fine (relatively new gas Bilsteins) and my driveway doesn't have pot holes it does get washed out during heavy rainstorms. Luckily, I have a tractor with a grader to take care of it when someone complains enough.
Re: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Thanks for that thought, Brian. IMHO, some people (including me) are blaming their scanners for something their zoom lenses are doing! ;-) It's interesting to note that digital cameras are offering Digital Zoom, when what they are really offering is electronic zooming-in of pixels. This is the exact equivalent of making close-up crops of an existing picture--and if you don't have high resolution in the first place, you won't have it in the second place, either. All but some *very* expensive zoom lenses have traded on that appearance for quite a few years. The pure fact of the matter is that zoom lenses are not equal to telephoto lenses. Never have been, never will be. It's another of those compromises we make, to get the picture. :-) Best regards--LRA From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:46:44 +0100 In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arthur Entlich wrote: In general, some of the older fixed focus lenses proved to have better glass, and if they are well multicoated they can be great. One of my best lenses is a Nikkor 135 2.8 tele. It is a Q series, which was a quality multicoated glass. The main problem is that most SLR cameras these days come with zoom lenses as standard. Designing zooms always involves more compromises than fixed lenses, as you have to allow for the changing light paths as the elements move when zooming. Until computers where used for the design work zooms tended to be of poor quality or very expensive, because of the vast amount of calculations needed. Computers enabled designers to do these calculations in a fraction of the time, so zooms became better and cheaper. However there are still trade-offs involved. There are also many more glass elements in a zoom, and the internal mechanics are much more complicated. A good fixed lens will usually have 6-7 pieces of glass in it, and simple mechanisms for focusing. A zoom can often have 14 or more glass elements in it, in several different groups, and these groups have to move backwards and forwards at different rates when zooming or focusing. It is a wonder that they can get them to work successfully at all, especially at the prices now charged. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Franklin) wrote: LEDs have been around for a very long time, and they are reasonably inexpensive, as well as very easy to control. I am sure that if this was such a great idea, and the implementation worked near as well as you believe, it would have been done some 15-20 years ago as a commercial venture, but, alas, it wasn't. An LED light source for enlargers was not done 15-20 years ago because it was not possible. Blue LED's did not exist as anything other than laboratory curiosities until within the last 5 years. Sure you could have done that 15-20 years ago. Use filters...red, green and blue filters certainly were around 15-20 years ago. LEDs are monochromatic light sources and can't be filtered to another colour.
Re: filmscanners: cd making question
On 22/6/01 7:53 pm, cjcronin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can do this. Yes...buy a Mac;-)
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Moreno wrote: And taking things one step further, a dense LED array positioned closer to the negative could even be programmed to provide some degree of selective dodging/burning/variable constrast control. With an appropriate control mechanism, a user could adjust for dead even lighting across the easel for a specific lens/format size combination. This is a very signifficant AhHa! IME. I'm actually surprised that no programs, to date, are using that possibility. As I might have said sometime ago, we users *do* have some ideas worth considering, from time to time. ;-) Best regards--LRA From: Moreno Polloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:05:09 -0700 A couple of years ago someone on the darkroom newsgroup was working on an LED light source for enlarger heads, utilizing clusters of high-intensity LED's. I don't know what happened to the project, but at the time a lot of people were really excited about the technology and the initial results showed a lot of promise. http://www.trailing-edge.com/www/led.html Yes, and look at how uneven the lighting is. Quoting a recent post on this list: And you can tell this from a 72dpi JPEG image? For an enlarger, that may turn out to be a very bad idea, simply because you can't adjust each individual LED for even illumination. At least with a CCD, you can adjust the gain for each sensor element to get even illumination. Why can't you adjust each LED for illumination levels? For instance, the designer could quite easily vary the voltage levels throughout the array to compensate for enlarger lens light fall-off. And taking things one step further, a dense LED array positioned closer to the negative could even be programmed to provide some degree of selective dodging/burning/variable constrast control. With an appropriate control mechanism, a user could adjust for dead even lighting across the easel for a specific lens/format size combination. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
The pure fact of the matter is that zoom lenses are not equal to telephoto lenses. Never have been, never will be. There are always exceptions. The Leica 70-180/2.8R is actually as good as, or better than, most single focal length lenses throughout its range. But then you pay for that quality, both in dollars and ounces. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
Herm wrote, re Ectachrome Professional: I use a lot of this film pushed to +3 stops..according to Kodak the resulting ASA numbers are 200 (normal), 320, 640, 1000. Even at 1000 it still has very low grain (a bit less than a 400ASA print film), of course you have to be careful since it will not tolerate improper exposures at ASA1000. Pushed +3 its a good film for available light photography. Extremely fine grain when used at 200 or 320. Uh, this is probably a really dumb question, but what steps would you use to get this pushed-film processed, given the technology likely available in a small town? The last time I pushed film, I lived in a large metro area--I don't presently. At that time, I found that the labs would routinely process (neg) frames that had been deliberately been low-bracketed, so that the results from top-bracket to low-bracket were essentially the same. I probably should have pursued this phenomenon, but threw my hands up and said *%#!, or words to that effect. ;-) This sounds like something I'd like to look into, if I can find the resources. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Moreno wrote: And taking things one step further, a dense LED array positioned closer to the negative could even be programmed to provide some degree of selective dodging/burning/variable constrast control. With an appropriate control mechanism, a user could adjust for dead even lighting across the easel for a specific lens/format size combination. This is a very signifficant AhHa! IME. I'm actually surprised that no programs, to date, are using that possibility. As I might have said sometime ago, we users *do* have some ideas worth considering, from time to time. ;-) If you could make it very very dense and were able to calibrate it somehow (which is an big task in and of it self to calibrate a 2d area this size with sufficient resolution), possibly, but I believe it won't work very well in a real implementation. You have to diffuse the LEDs in order to make them illuminate evenly, but in doing so, individual LED coverage will overlap substantially, as well as their area of coverage becoming larger. This means your area of control becomes much smaller.
RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes
Rafe wrote: 35 mm images are about 60 Mbytes (24 bit color.) 645 images are about 160-170 Mbytes (24 bit color.) That stands to reason, given the larger size. I'm wondering if there is a program that would save both a TIFF and a much smaller JPEG file to HD, and index them according film strip, date scanned and frame#. Then one could select the best TIFFs and dump the weak ones, but still have good references for future work. If there isn't, it's just an idea and I don't believe too thoroughly in Intellectual Property--so feel free to run with it, anyone. If I were a better programmer, I'd start on it tomorrow, and wouldn't have mentioned it today. (I might not believe in IP, but I'm not stupid, either! ;-) ) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Rafe wrote: It's generally when either the bulb or its ballast is near the end of its life. Thanks for adding that note, Rafe. I didn't *think* I was going nuts, or at least not just yet, and I'm seeing that effect in an 18-month-old HP scanner. Banding on the edges, just where you'd expect it with a bad ballast. Best regards--LRA From: Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:39:31 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Stan McQueen wrote: Fluorescents flicker at the AC line frequency--60 Hz in the US. This is because, as you say, the fluorescent light is a plasma device. The discharge turns on and off at the line frequency. It is not a continuous discharge (either in time or in wavelength). The UV from the mercury vapor discharge tube causes the inner coating of fluorescent material to, er, fluoresce. The composition of the coating determines what wavelengths (I would normally use frequency but I don't want to confuse it with AC line frequency) will be emitted by the tube. Stan, I was thinking of more pathological behavior. A healthy bulb, with a healthy, regulated power supply, is not really my concern here. I understand that household flourescents are driven by 60 Hz, (in the USA) but I also know that the bulbs inside some film scanners are driven at much higher frequencies, and those frequencies are not well controlled. But I have seen, on household flourescent lamps, situations where the plasma seems to be moving about and varying in intensity. It's generally when either the bulb or its ballast is near the end of its life. And I've seen banding effects in my older scanners (both the Microtek and the Polaroid) which could only be explained by time-variant spatial non-uniformity of the lamp's brightness. A moderate spatial non-uniformity would be acceptable, IF it were time-invariant, at least during the course of one scan. rafe b. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
An LED light source for enlargers was not done 15-20 years ago because it was not possible. Blue LED's did not exist as anything other than laboratory curiosities until within the last 5 years. Sure you could have done that 15-20 years ago. Use filters...red, green and blue filters certainly were around 15-20 years ago. LEDs are monochromatic light sources and can't be filtered to another colour. If blue LEDs were not available, outside the lab, as stated above, until 5 years ago, they why were there blue lenses available for LEDS in at least the early 90's if they did nothing?
Re: filmscanners: line on Polaroid SS4000
John H. wrote: Earlier, I had posted a help message regarding a line that I was getting on my scans from the 4000. If I scan a horizontal slide, there is a light colored line about one third of the way down from the top, it goes all the way from left to right. I called Polaroid and since the scanner is out of warranty, it would cost $125 for an estimate and the lady on the phone said it might end up costing a total of $500-600 to fix. I only use the machine perhaps 3 times a week, so it is not something that is critical to my work. Thanks to Paul Chefurka and his suggestion to see if the line was one pixel wide, I found my own solution. I just don't feel at this point that I want to spend almost half the price of the scanner to have it repaired. In Photoshop, I enlarged the image on the monitor to about 1000 per cent. At this magnification, you are able to see the individual lines of pixels. I selected the line above the light scan line I got and then copied it, and then with the move tool, moved it over the line caused by the scanner, and it works perfect, you can not tell it is there. It took all of maybe 2 minutes to do. I guess this could also be a good fix for a scratch that went from side to side. LOL This is one of the most *sensible* workarounds that I've seen in ages! Thanks, John, for bringing us back to Reality! :-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN : PLEASE READ : MAIL BOUNCES
Hi, Tony-- Re your message, my subscription at [EMAIL PROTECTED] might just be one of the offenders. I've been trying for 12 days to cut off my subscription there, and I can't access the sumbitch! I'll try again tonight, and I'll try a few tricks as well. If I'm not successful, please feel free to cut the umbilicle!! ;-) It's not like I'll ever use that service again, it's so out to lunch. If I've caused you to lose any more hair than you woulda during a normal shower, please accept my appologies. I actually have a harder time with this damned electronic mail-box sh*t than you do--if you didn't have such a super List site, I'd just cash it in. Best regards--Lynn Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: ADMIN : PLEASE READ : MAIL BOUNCES Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:19 +0100 (BST) PLEASE will subscribers to the list and digest take care to empty their POP3 mailboxes often enough to ensure consistent delivery of mails from this list. And in fact anywhere else. Please bear in mind that if your mailbox becomes full, EVERY message sent is bounced back to the sender. That is ME, so for EACH bouncing address I get the ENTIRE list volume. At any one time there are 5-25 subscribed addresses doing this. IF IT HAPPENS, I HAVE TO UNSUBSCRIBE YOU TO AVOID BEING DROWNED IN YOUR MAIL. This is a PITA which takes up at least 30mins a day, especially where Byzantine forwarding and aliasing arrangements have been deployed which mask the subscribed ID. Headers frequently don't give sufficient info. This is becoming a worse problem as free mail providers are taking a more restrictive view. Bigfoot now only permits 25 mails max. THIS MEANS BIGFOOT IS UTTERLY USELESS FOR RECEIVING THIS LIST UNLESS YOU LOG ON AND CLEAR YOUR MAILBOX 2-3x a DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. All you HOTMAIL and MSN users should be aware that periodically Hotmail/MSN DNS gets amnesia and bounce ALL mail to either domain (as non-existent!). This happens on average once a month, and I have seen it many times. Moral : don't use either service unless you accept that not all mail will arrive at your account. I don't remove subscribers when this happens though, as it is a known issue. PLEASE CLEAR YOUR MAILBOXES OF READ MESSAGES WHILE I STILL HAVE SOME HAIR Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
I'm familiar with VCC, having spec'd their products many times over the years. The early blue (and green) lenses were intended for use with small incandescent bulbs with the same T1-3/4 form-factor that was adopted by LED manufacturers, not for use with LEDs. Not the ones I was referencing. They specifically say Lensmounts for 3mm and 5mm LEDs. The catalog is titled LED Lenses and Mounting Components. Here is a scan of the VCC sheet for the ClipLite from this catalog (dated 4/92): http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/VCCClipLite4LEDs.jpg I believe the timeline you previously claimed for when blue LEDs were available is possibly wrong. At least according to the LED Museum link you provided in the same post. It appears it is white LEDs that were available about five years ago (1996). Blue LEDs appear to have been available somewhat early in the 1990s. That would make sense that these LED covers were intended (though it's not stated they were) for like colored LEDs. If blue covers were for blue LEDs, that would make sense that blue LEDs would have been reasonably available at the latest by very early 1992 (when the VCC catalog shows blue covers), if not a year or more before.
filmscanners: bracketing neg film was: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
Lynn Allen wrote: Uh, this is probably a really dumb question, but what steps would you use to get this pushed-film processed, given the technology likely available in a small town? The last time I pushed film, I lived in a large metro area--I don't presently. At that time, I found that the labs would routinely process (neg) frames that had been deliberately been low-bracketed, so that the results from top-bracket to low-bracket were essentially the same. I probably should have pursued this phenomenon, but threw my hands up and said *%#!, or words to that effect. ;-) Actually, the lab did its job. The prints are supposed to show the information on the film. You should have noticed that the frames that did not get enough exposure started to look pretty muddy and grainy. If you want a print to be printed dark, you have to tell the lab. It is still far better to print down a properly exposed neg than to work with a thin, underexposed neg, so I would never bracket down with neg film... Isaac This sounds like something I'd like to look into, if I can find the resources. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners - Apology
Austin, Please forgive my comment; you're right, it was out of line, and I'm sorry to have offended. Cliff Ober -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners Some of your recent statements of technical fact seem to be casting a bit of a shadow on your own credentials as an engineer; That comment is really out of line. If you want to question my credentials, please do so privately. There is only ONE statement I made that is in question, that I am aware of, and that is the 1000 hours life of an LED. Other than that, what other statements of technical fact are you referring to? once again here are sites with valid data: And once again, here is a scan of the information I sourced that also contains valid data: http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/StanleyLEDTestData.jpg
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Hi, Art, you wrote: I also expect, like incandescents and other illumination sources, LEDs can be built to different specs and be run under different electronic designs. For instance, I know that with the halogen bulbs used in projectors, a 25 hr bulb will last only 5-11 hours run at 125-130 volts, will last 11-19 hours run at 120-125 volts, they last upwards of 19-31 hrs run at 115-120 and if you use a dimmer to bring them down to about 105-110, they will last well over 50 hours, or nearly one order of magnitude from running at 125-130 volts. This is so darned off-topic that I'm going off-list, but aren't halogen bulbs supposed to be used with direct current? That would presuppose an ac-dc converter, which could/should deliver optimum power for the device, unless you're using one tagged to a variable battery-charger. Granted that Manufacturer Specs are almost always overstated, halogens are the most reliable light devices I know of. LED's are another matter, and idealy they're run from DC as well, although it isn't a requirement since they modulate the power themselves, AFAIK. OTOH, they come in all flavors, and one isn't the same as another. Whatever--I just wondered how Austin got us so far off-topic. ;-) Best regards--Lynn _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin Franklin wrote: Some of your recent statements of technical fact seem to be casting a bit of a shadow on your own credentials as an engineer; That comment is really out of line. If you want to question my credentials, please do so privately. There is only ONE statement I made that is in question, that I am aware of, and that is the 1000 hours life of an LED. Other than that, what other statements of technical fact are you referring to? I think he is refering to your jibe of: My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Not only is the typical life of LEDs far longer than what you have asserted, you were pretty snide when you pointed out your superior knowledge. So I guess all the above poster was pointing out is what goes around comes around...:-) once again here are sites with valid data: And once again, here is a scan of the information I sourced that also contains valid data: http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/StanleyLEDTestData.jpg Yes, but how did you extrapolate this into typical performance for all LEDs? Isaac
Re: filmscanners: cd making question
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: cd making question Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:30:25 +0100 On 22/6/01 7:53 pm, cjcronin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can do this. Yes...buy a Mac;-) groan That's killing flies with a shotgun. ;-) --LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
LEDs are monochromatic light sources and can't be filtered to another colour. Seems to me I've seen LEDs in at least 6 different original colors, and I wasn't paying that close attention. Red, blue, amber and green are the most common. FTM, any white light source can be filtered. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Dan wrote: The Leica 70-180/2.8R is actually as good as, or better than, most single focal length lenses throughout its range. I don't have the camera or the money to test it, so I'll accept your good word that the lens is what you say it is. I don't even know for sure if a 180-tele to fit my T-mount Pentax exists. Nor would that matter for the millions of photgraphers who don't have Leicas or Asahis. We were discussing compromises, and your 70-180 will *not* sub in for a 1000mm tele when shooting lions or whatever, even with extenders. The Leica and its lensatics are excellent, and no one is arguing that point. There is no One Size Fits All in cameras, in spite of what Kodak says, and as a *general* rule, a fixed focus, special-use tele lens will be superior to an--or at least *most--zoom lenses. But the prime rule is still, Getting the Shot. Best regards--LRA From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:19:32 -0400 The pure fact of the matter is that zoom lenses are not equal to telephoto lenses. Never have been, never will be. There are always exceptions. The Leica 70-180/2.8R is actually as good as, or better than, most single focal length lenses throughout its range. But then you pay for that quality, both in dollars and ounces. Dan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 hours. Not only is the typical life of LEDs far longer than what you have asserted, You are right, ALL LEDs are not typically rated for 1000 hours. The typical was meant only for the LEDs I was referencing, not for all LEDs. Saying their was clearly my mistake. All I meant to point out was that there are LEDs that have as low an MTBF as 1000 hours. Yes, but how did you extrapolate this into typical performance for all LEDs? Via mistake.
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Whatever--I just wondered how Austin got us so far off-topic. ;-) You give me too much credit here! I believe it was the enlarger light source that was what brought this way off topic. I believe that honor goes to Sr. Polloni. OK, I'll take some credit. None the less, at least for me, and despite any statements that were rough around the edges it has been a very interesting discussion.
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners - Apology
Cliff, thank you I appreciate it. Since you seem to know quite a bit about LEDs, what do you believe Nikon uses for an LED light source for this new scanner?
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin wrote (re selective burning w/film scanners) If you could make it very very dense and were able to calibrate it somehow (which is an big task in and of it self to calibrate a 2d area this size with sufficient resolution), possibly, but I believe it won't work very well in a real implementation. You have to diffuse the LEDs in order to make them illuminate evenly, but in doing so, individual LED coverage will overlap substantially, as well as their area of coverage becoming larger. This means your area of control becomes much smaller. I think you may be unnecessarily complicating the problem. Let's say software and the scanner driver could control what areas were exposed, and for what duration, in selected areas. This would be the equivalent of the darkroom technician's Dodge Burn, but would occur during the scan. A common problem is the photo with deep shadow and very bright highlights. A scanner with DR 3.3 will screw one end of the histogram or the other in this case, just as the film did. With selective exposure, the operator could select one area or another for a different exposure rate from the scanner. On balance, you'd have DR 3.3 in the highlights and DR 3.3 in the shadows, but they would have different DMin/DMax values in the selected areas--different white/black points, so to speak. Do you see what I'm getting at, here? I'm not a good enough programmer to do such a thing, but given controlable variables in a scanner--which some now in fact have--it sould be done. Whether it's done with LED's or head speed is immaterial, it's doable. Just another idea from the Rust Belt. Best regards--LRA Moreno wrote: And taking things one step further, a dense LED array positioned closer to the negative could even be programmed to provide some degree of selective dodging/burning/variable constrast control. With an appropriate control mechanism, a user could adjust for dead even lighting across the easel for a specific lens/format size combination. This is a very signifficant AhHa! IME. I'm actually surprised that no programs, to date, are using that possibility. As I might have said sometime ago, we users *do* have some ideas worth considering, from time to time. ;-) If you could make it very very dense and were able to calibrate it somehow (which is an big task in and of it self to calibrate a 2d area this size with sufficient resolution), possibly, but I believe it won't work very well in a real implementation. You have to diffuse the LEDs in order to make them illuminate evenly, but in doing so, individual LED coverage will overlap substantially, as well as their area of coverage becoming larger. This means your area of control becomes much smaller. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
That didn't go off-list, did it? :-( Sorry--LRA From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:55:41 - Hi, Art, you wrote: I also expect, like incandescents and other illumination sources, LEDs can be built to different specs and be run under different electronic designs. For instance, I know that with the halogen bulbs used in projectors, a 25 hr bulb will last only 5-11 hours run at 125-130 volts, will last 11-19 hours run at 120-125 volts, they last upwards of 19-31 hrs run at 115-120 and if you use a dimmer to bring them down to about 105-110, they will last well over 50 hours, or nearly one order of magnitude from running at 125-130 volts. This is so darned off-topic that I'm going off-list, but aren't halogen bulbs supposed to be used with direct current? That would presuppose an ac-dc converter, which could/should deliver optimum power for the device, unless you're using one tagged to a variable battery-charger. Granted that Manufacturer Specs are almost always overstated, halogens are the most reliable light devices I know of. LED's are another matter, and idealy they're run from DC as well, although it isn't a requirement since they modulate the power themselves, AFAIK. OTOH, they come in all flavors, and one isn't the same as another. Whatever--I just wondered how Austin got us so far off-topic. ;-) Best regards--Lynn _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
OT Discussion was Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Guys, could we please take the LED discussions off the list? While they may be interesting to the engineers amongst us, I don't think they're of much interest to those who are subscribed to discuss filmscanning? I think we can all agree that the mechanical components of a scanner are more likely to fail than the LEDs, and the LEDs are likely to outlast the useful life of the rest of the scanner hardware. If you disagree - please email me *off* the list. :) Rob
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin wrote (re selective burning w/film scanners) If you could make it very very dense and were able to calibrate it somehow (which is an big task in and of it self to calibrate a 2d area this size with sufficient resolution), possibly, but I believe it won't work very well in a real implementation. You have to diffuse the LEDs in order to make them illuminate evenly, but in doing so, individual LED coverage will overlap substantially, as well as their area of coverage becoming larger. This means your area of control becomes much smaller. I think you may be unnecessarily complicating the problem. Let's say software and the scanner driver Oops...I think you took this in the wrong context. My discussion was aimed at enlargers using LEDs as a light source, not scanners. Enlargers require a 2d array, not a 1d array. With the scanner, it is very easy to calibrate along the 1d axis...and the points are discrete. For an enlarger, they are not discrete...and they are 2d.
filmscanners: Missing imgio.exe
I have just started receiving the message that imgio.exe cannot be found and I would appreciate being told where I can obtain the file. Thank you. Stewart
