RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, /fn ps: I picked up a box of european travel/tourist junk (maps, postcards, etc.) from an auction tonight, and found a couple hundred commerical slides in the bottom! These are from the late 70's and early 80's. THey are all in the original boxes/pouches - I have started scanning them in for fun and practice and the images are fantastic (to a lame newbie like me!) I am surprised the color has survived this long. I guess being in a storage container for the past 15 years didn't hurt them! I won't be getting too much sleep tonight - this is just way to much fun! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Womack Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:49 PM To: Majordomo leben.com Subject: re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem I've never had this happen, only two thoughts come to mind. The clips on the film carrier are not CLIPPED tightly, double squeeze them to make sure. Defective. Check the film strip holders and if those are tight, exchange it! alan Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I will get a different frame back - ie. selecting 4 returns 5. This also occurs when batch scanning - ie. I will only get 3 of the 4 frames and a blank. I have tried both MiraPhoto and Vuescan when this occurs and it is repeatable in both (it happens every time) once it starts happening. I don't see any obvious sequence that leads to it. I somes have scanned in 10 to 15 strips with no problem. Once the problem occurs it is repeatable 100% until I turn the Scanwit off and back on. I have tried both with and without a SCSI terminator. Any suggestions before contact Tech Support? (I called tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour before I gave up.) Frank Nichols Newbie - and proud of it! Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
re[2]: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Well, honestly I almost returned the scanner for defective because when I got mine I didn't squeeze hard enough either! Tech support was clueless.. alan What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors
Alan, Wait a minute! I thought the whole idea of ICC color management was that the various input and output devices could translate from one colorspace to another using ICC profiles. I guess I don't get it! Maybe I'd better go read up some more on ICC color management. I wish someone who knows more about software and hardware could tell me how to set up my color management so I could get back to photography. : ) And I thought wet color work was hard! : ) Lost in Color Space, : 0 Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Alan Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Majordomo leben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:48 PM Subject: re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors Yes, unless you are using a custom profile the native Epson driver does indeed expect you to be in sRGB. Alan AFAIK this is normal. The gamuts of the colour spaces are different. But it leads me to wonder - if some of the problems I've had with colour matching between the screen and the output on an Epson printer is that the printer driver expects the user to be viewing an image in sRGB not in Adobe RGB? Rob Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:45:48 +0200 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the same problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative, which gave a perfect fine grained print, but scanning with the Scanwit 2720S is useless for such overexposed negatives as the negative is too dark for the (my) scanwit to scan. I don't know if it is the lightbulb which gives uneven illumination or dust on the lenses, CCD failures etc, but the outer sides of the CCD give too much noise on a dark negative / positive and in case of a negative this results in yellowish banding. Here I show you the scan, downsampled a lot of times. I did use either Vuescan or Miraphoto white balance (which clearly failed, but I know I checked both programs for their results: you get this strange color cast). Here, this looks completely out to lunch, especially gamma, which is way too high. I can't really tell much about the image itself because such gross gamma correction is required before I can see anything much, and then a pile of colour correction too. If this looks anything like OK gamma on your screen, your monitor is off a different planet. Whilst I can see what you mean about the sort of yellow vignette, the background - behind the car - has gone an elegant rose pink. I rather suspect there is nothing wrong with the scanner hardware, but there's a combination of pushing the exposure envelope, software and (perhaps) user error here. It's actually quite an interesting effect ;-) almost like cross-processing. A small (eg downsampled) Vuescan SCAN000n.tif would be useful at this stage, if you have s/w which can cope with 16bit/ch files. Does the scanner work OK on normally-exposed materials? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Walter Bushell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice. Well, this AP guy was definitely having problems with football games :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Frank, I've often failed to snap 'the center snaps' correctly on my Scanwit 2720S, but scanning the wrong frame wasn't the result - I got fatal failure to focus in Miraphoto, and 'hangs' in Vuescan. So I hope clicking the carrier properly fixes your problem, but I don't think I've had the 'wrong frame' problem you describe in about 18 months' operation. I also had a problem when I inadvertently covered up the slot at the outer end of the carrier with a film leader, which caused all sorts of trouble. Good luck. I like my Scanwit very much, and its value for money is brilliant, but you have to understand its limitations. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:25 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid...etc .
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:05:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me Coo. I have a very few slides I shot on Agfa CT18 when I was a kid, c.1964. Despite negligent storage, the colours are still saturated and neutral. I found a colour neg of my dad's on unmasked Agfacolor col.neg, from 1958, and had it printed recently. Excellent, especially skin tones. Grass was a little yellowish, but that's all. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: . BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Oh, you might think so ;) - but see below Nishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence Institute, so appears to know his stuff. It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the heebie-jeebies... INDUSTRY NEWS Warning: Negative base deterioration If you haven't been using polyester based film (such as Kodak Estar base films), then I expect that most of you won't have any negatives left within a few decades. Let me give you the sad story first before I talk about the whys and hows. I got a call around 1992 or so from Evelyn New York photographer known for her coffee table books in the 1950s and 60s of European cities. She called because she went into her negative collection and found that they were all badly distorted and the emulsions were lifting off. We had been researching this problem since 1988 and were very aware of what the problem was. I had to tell her that her life's work (other than what books and prints were already out in the world) was gone and there was nothing that could be done. A few could be saved by special methods, but it's so labor intensive that of her thousands of negatives, it would only be worth treating a couple. Think about it.this was only 30 years or so.Any film that you're shooting that isn't polyester (also called poly(ethylene terephthalate), trade names include Estar and Mylar) then you're on cellulose triacetate. All of the cellulose acetate film bases are made by taking cellulose (the main constituent of paper and trees) and modifying with acetic acid. (I'm oversimplifying here, but this is the general idea.) This is why it's cellulose acetate. Kodachrome film was on a variation of this base until about 1976 and then it switched to triacetate. Ektachrome sheet film was also on another variation, but all of these bases behave in the same way. The plastic base reacts with water and the humidity in the air is sufficient. The water in the presence of acids (and alkalines) pulls off the acetates as acetic acid (or vinegar) and you can smell it. Water alone can also do this, but the acid or alkaline acts as a special kind of accelerator called a catalyst. Consider then that one acid and water goes in and two acids (the original plus a vinegar) comes out. Those two can go into a reaction to produce four acids and so on and so on. This is what we call an autocatalytic reaction...The stuff is generating it's own accelerator to destruction. If we measure the deterioration over time, it starts out very slowly and slowly gets faster. Eventually it generates enough acids that it reaches what we call the autocatalytic point and the reaction really accelerates and gets faster and faster. This reaction is acid (or alkaline) catalysed, but is not autocatalytic. Removal of the large acetate groups as acetic acid vapors causes the film base to shrink. It will ultimately shrink about 10% to 15%. At the same time, the gelatin emulsion is trying to stay attached, but it's not shrinking so eventually the adhesion between the base and the emulsion gives out and we see this as channelling. You literally find tunnels formed by the emulsion (on top) and the separated base on the bottom often about 1/8 inch in diameter. Sheet films with an anti-curl layer will also do that on the anti-curl layer side as well. Breaking of the plastic molecules into short pieces meanwhile causes the base to get brittle. I've shocked my students by giving them a sheet of deteriorated film and letting them flex it. It eventually has the flexibility of fresh potato chip. I've crumbled a negative between my fingers like crisp bacon. Meanwhile plasticizers in the base become incompatible and they start coming out as perhaps feathery crystals or as oily liquid filled blisters, or as solid plugs. The feathery crystals are about the most common plasticizer, tri-phenyl phosphate. The oily liquid plasticizer is a phthalate, often dimethoxyethylphthalate. How fast can this happen? If you stored your negatives constantly at a comfortable 70F (21C)/50% relative humidity, we would expect to see fresh acetate film hit the autocatalytic point in about 40 years. In the case that I mentioned above, every summer she would close-up her Manhattan apartment and head to Europe so the negatives literally baked in the humid New York City heat which greatly reduced the life of her negatives. To give you an idea about how fast this thing can go, let me give you an example. Suppose that we track the acidity in the base over time. It starts out very very close to zero and at the auto-catalytic point has x amount of acid. Now I mentioned that at 70F (21C)/50% RH it will take about 40 years to create x amount of acid. How long do you think it would take, if
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
That's what I suspect, or that it uses some type of averaging process of several rows overlapped in the single row mode. Further, I suspect the middle CCD strip is the most insulated from anomalies (electronic, and spill over). Art Rob Geraghty wrote: Rafe wrote: Not entirely sure what this does -- the Nikon manual says it uses one CCD row rather than three -- but it did completely eliminate the banding. The price is that the scan takes three times as long (!!!) Maybe the banding is caused by differences in the response of the three CCD rows? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
This is sounding a lot like Epson's micro printing mode to eliminate banding during printing. It seems it might be using the middle CCD row, which is probably most stable of the three. As you said, it would slow things down quick a bit. The dense scan banding brings back memories of my HP PhotoSmart... Seems CCD scanners still are not quite there... maybe a few more generations? Art rafeb wrote: As luck/fate would have it, I'm now seeing very similar banding to what Lawrence Smith reported and demonstrated with his sample slide a day or two back. In a nutshell: vertical banding on a landscape-format negative (horizontal banding on a lansdcape-format slide) that looks a bit like venetian blinds. Very regular and periodic. I've seen it now on both slides and negatives. The problem may be related to overly-dense transparencies, but then again maybe not. I'm not sure if this banding has always been here on this scanner, or if it just appeared. In any case it's pretty awful, at least on some images. I just got off the phone with Nikon Tech support (800-NIKON-UX) and they did offer the following solution, which did eliminate the banding: In the Tools Pallette, under Scanner Extras, item CCD Scan Mode -- check the Super Fine Scan box.
RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it has been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO 320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more overexposed than others. The print from the printing service is OK though, I could send a flatbed scan of it (the only problem is their cropping, they took off parts of the left door!@#$%). Anyway, before you all start thinking I am in error here, I think I'll send a raw scan downsampled to the list (I'll send only the link) so you can see for yourself if it's me or the Scanwit. The scanner does not work OK on normally-exposed materials in the sense that even though the errors are much less visible, they are still there, most noticeably on even coloured or light colored parts of a scan from negative and on dark colored parts of a positive. Its ruining the wedding shots we have taken from our family. Thank you for your interest, Jerry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain Here, this looks completely out to lunch, especially gamma, which is way too high. I can't really tell much about the image itself because such gross gamma correction is required before I can see anything much, and then a pile of colour correction too. If this looks anything like OK gamma on your screen, your monitor is off a different planet. Whilst I can see what you mean about the sort of yellow vignette, the background - behind the car - has gone an elegant rose pink. I rather suspect there is nothing wrong with the scanner hardware, but there's a combination of pushing the exposure envelope, software and (perhaps) user error here. It's actually quite an interesting effect ;-) almost like cross-processing. A small (eg downsampled) Vuescan SCAN000n.tif would be useful at this stage, if you have s/w which can cope with 16bit/ch files. Does the scanner work OK on normally-exposed materials? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Who ever said that spell check is smart? And I thought it was smarter than I am. Well maybe it is. Anyway, it's a picture of the ... and I should learn how to proff read better. Funny thing is that I missed it after it came in also and that's where I pick up most of my missteaks. Larry Larry Berman wrote: There is a double page picture, shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb. ^^ Larry OH, I see, its one of those cameras that make the whole world look like a suburb... I prefer cameras that don't try to make everything look middle class myself! ;-) Art *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
I'll try your solution with the blank frame. I once tried to insert a piece of blank frame into the calibration hole and it made the whole scan stripy! Thanks, Jerry. BTW. I Bcc'd Mr. Honda Lo, so that's why I included all of your mail. -Original Message- From: Mark T. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain Further to Art's comprehensive troubleshooting tips.. I hope I am wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the lamp - therefore will be expensive to fix.. Best of luck - I presume you have spoken/pleaded with Honda Lo? (Tell him that the good karma you would give out, from receiving a replacement unit outside warranty, might bring MANY sales) :) Anyway, if you are unable to get it sorted..., may I also offer a quick, totally un-thought-out solution? Note that this is coming from a non-professional source, so is probably way off target.. If the stain is consistent, could you not scan a blank frame to get a 'profile' of it, then reverse that, maybe blur it a bit, and apply it to your image in Photoshop/whatever? Not a nice addition to your workflow (and ask someone *else* how to do it quickly!), but once you got the hang of it.. Mark T. ..who reckons all problems are easy to solve (provided they're not mine..) :) At 04:39 PM 25/06/01 -0700, Art wrote: Dear Jerry, I just took a look at your attachment in Photoshop. Of course, it is heavily artifacted due to the downsampling and Jpegging. The first thing.. (snipped) Oostrom, Jerry wrote: Hi Alan, I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the same problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative.. (snipped again)
RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors (that disappear with Mikael Risedal)
Mikael, even if I 'rely' on your writing, it still wasn't that obvious what the real issue was before your last mail. Your behaviour in it is 'uncontrolled' as if you lost your self-control. As a result it contains personal accusations and assumptions of which I cannot believe you have any good proof and even if you did, why write it to the list? It reads like a cartoon now and you become i.m.o. a caricature in it (like many supposedly adults I know btw. of which some are on this list too.). So loosen up! ... Although perhaps, you know each other very well and you were just joking around, teasing your friend Maris! If that's true, then you've got me and possibly others fooled. ...In that case, keep on! Anyway, I always like to read your posts, regardless of how polarised and colourful they are. Most parts of it have real benefit for me. And yes, you can see this as a personal attack, but I can assure you: * I have many problems in which I myself do not keep the amount of self-control or compassion that I like to have kept, even if it was only to keep up an appearance of matureness. * Others fight little flame wars in this list too, they were however not interesting to me, so you were just unlucky. * there's no benefit in looking upon my mail as an attack and I do mean to help (I also like to sting, but I do like to help ;-) * I send this to the list, since I think it may prevent some other list-participants (some LEDs blinking? ;-) to make bad caricatures of themselves. Of course some of you list members may find it more difficult if you cannot be as direct as you like... Just remember then that if you don't want your mail and your image to loose value because of your own words you should not write personal accusations on somebody's acts or more importantly intentions etc. in public, even if they are true. (this is how I try to make my mail less of a personal accusation is it working? 8-) Saint Jerry -Original Message- From: Mikael Risedal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors Maris!!! You dont know or try to learn what the real issue is. I have discover that something is wrong in VueScan and color space Adobe RGB. Read this !! From ED Yes, Adobe RGB makes flat colors. There's probably something I'm doing wrong inside VueScan (I may have inverted a matrix wrong). Regards, Ed Hamrick This is not a question about what suits the web or not. Every one knows what you are writing about S-RGB and the web. I do... There are a problem inside VueScan to convert and handel color space Adobe RGB. The software are optimized in S-RGB . I think I rather I let ED Hamrick explain it for you. And yes Im working in color space Adobe RGB not S-RGB. And if you will learn something from others read what they rely are writing. Puh Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden -- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:02:41 -0500 That may be fine for images you intend to post on the web, but by leaving it in the sRGB color space you are limiting the colors available for archiving and for printing. This is also BTW the reason the colors don't look flat - because the colors have been compressed. I prefer to scan and leave the image in Bruce or Adobe RGB, and change to sRGB only the copies I intend to post to the web. The archived scan will remain in a wider color space despite the 'flat' appearance. Maris
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
Art wrote: Sorry Lynn, you are several months (which in this biz is centuries) out of date. Epson (the printer people) with Cambridge Institute (I believe this is in Boston) have developed a method for using inkjet technology to spray some type of transistors onto substrates, to make a color panel which uses room reflective light source to create bright colored images that can be changed at will electronically. It only requires an edge connector to be activated. Actually, I was 18 years ahead-of-date in 1983 and Bradbury was even more so in 1949--what took them so long? ;-) Best regards--LRA This stuff will be so cheap to produce within a few years, and can be sprayed on so many different substrates, that you'll being seeing video Weakies commercials on the cereal box in the grocery store, very likely in YOUR lifetime (as long as you don't do anything too strenuous ;-)) And, BTW, as mentionedm, the more expensive version of this, using LCD technology is already available, but is only for people like Bill Gates, who has just such a thing. Smaller versions are available for the little people (;-0) in places like Sharper Image catalogues. Art Lynn Allen wrote: Hi, Steve-- Yes, this is sort of what I was talking about, on a lesser scale--I had the idea back in the 80's, Ray Bradbury had it back in the 40's. :-) It's a little bit Star Trek, but the concept is valid. Thanks for passing on the web site. As of now, the technology is too expensive and too limited--it still needs a breakthrough or several. I knew the mother of an engineer/physicist whose field was liquid crystal research. He hit so many brick walls (in the 60's 70's) that he had a nervous breakdown and eventually committed suicide. True fact. Eventually, Bradbury's concept will come about, and you'll actually be able to put movies of the African Veldt on the wall of your kids' room. Not in my lifetime, though, and the kids will *probably* not be able to turn the lions loose on their parents. ;-) Best regards--Lynn Allen _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem
I know this topic is revisited ad nauseum, but I have just discovered that what I thought was the Right Thing To Do does not appear to be right at all. On my system, Adobe Gamma setup seems to be worse than no setup at all. I have cross posted this to Epson7x7, filmscanners, scan and digital silver lists. This post has become very long, read it if you are interested, but the essence of my question is ... ** Please look at my simple greyscale step wedge at www.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/stepwedge.htm and tell me if setting this up for equal visual steps is a valid way of setting screen gamma, and does *your* monitor show this wedge accurately? ** My problem was to make my recently web-published photos look reasonable on other people's monitors. I use PS5.5 and a Sony 400PS monitor. I thought I had this all sussed, because I had religiously used Adobe Gamma to give me what I assumed would be, maybe not perfect, but at least ball-park OK settings. I then looked at my pubescent website on someone else's computer to discover all my deep beautiful saturated colors were pale, insignificant and plain ugly. I checked a couple of other computers and while they vary, generally they give the same result. My conclusion therefore was that for some reason my screen gamma is set to make my screen look too dark. So I checked Adobe Gamma again but it gave me the same settings. I can't afford a proper calibrator at this time, but decided to go back to basics on the assumption that a step wedge greyscale from 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 should look balanced on my screen and the steps should all be visible and roughly the same brightness difference between adjacent steps across the scale. I constructed a simple step wedge of 17 steps (0,0,0; 16,16,16; 32,32,32 ...255,255,255) and it looked bad. The bottom 3 steps were all black, which seemed to confirm that my monitor was NOT adjusted correctly. So I tried then to adjust gamma so that my stepwedge looked ok. The problem is that to achieve this, the gamma has to be set so high as to be almost off the scale. This is the same whether I use the slider on Adobe Gamma Utility, or a different setting available in my Matrox card adjustment software. In both cases the gamma required to make the step wedge look OK is way up the top end of the adjustment. And of course all my wallpapers and in fact all my images now look pale and washed out. I have since looked at other photo sites to see how they look with my new settings, and the situation is still confused. On some sites their images now look washed out, others look OK. The average would be roughly half way between my Adobe Gamma setting and my Step Wedge setting. I am now completely confused, but aware that most of us are probably making false assumptions about how other peoples' web photos are meant to look. For example, Lawrence Smith has a critique site whose address was posted on a list today - at http://www.lwsphoto.com/06_25_critique.htm. I looked at this rather beautiful photo but didn't like how dark the stem and leaves were, which agreed with a few of the comments posted at the site. But now that I have adjusted to my Step Wedge gamma and looked again, the photo looks completely different, and the stem and leaves are fine. Which is right? There is a HUGE difference. Any answers to my questions welcomed... - is my assumption correct that such a stepwedge is a reasonable way to set up screen gamma? - why doesn't the setting that this implies agree with the setting suggested by Adobe Gamma? There is a HUGE difference. - why is the correct gamma setting according to my stepwedge so high, nearly off scale? - what kind of gamma are most monitors actually aligned to IN PRACTICE? I know about nominal 1.8 and 2.2 for Apple and PCs, but it doesn't seem that this bears much relationship to reality? Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Frank Nichols wrote: I called [Acer] tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour before I gave up.) In the US, Acer Support is 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7days a week). Acer UK may not be, however. Try calling them at some totally ungodly hour. ;-) It sounds like a firmware problem, since it re-sets when you turn the scanner off and then back on again. I agree with Allen--return and exchange it. Best regards--LRA (another Acer user) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg. OTOH, it seems like it would create a perfect mask if the neg were scratched, because the IR *would* pass through the scratches. It could then be offset slightly to pick up the values to one side of the scratches, or from a blurred copy of the picture. I don't know if anybody's tried this, but it seems doable, at least as a theory. If IR reacts the same way to a fine line of detail as it would to a scratch, however, it would probably be more trouble than it's worth. :-) Best regards--LRA Roger wrote: Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use IR dust removal with it. Lynn wrote: Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't IR still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg? Rob wrote: How does the software determine what is a scratch and what isn't? The whole point with a chromogenic image is that the image doesn't appear in the IR channel. You don't have that with a BW neg. I don't think there would be any advantage to an IR channel compared to a normal channel in terms of scratches except that the scratch *may* be a little more obvious. The main problem is that the scratch might also be a fine line of image detail... _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use IR dust removal with it. Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't IR still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg? ICE depends on differences between the visible and IR transmission to differentiate defects from image. Color slides and negatives are almost completely transparent in the IR while the defects block both visible and IR. The defects stand out and can easily be removed. Kodachrome dyes block some of the IR, making separation of image and defects harder. With BW negatives, visible and IR look the same and there is nothing to distinguish image from defects.
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 vs. Nikon L4000
I'm trying to decide between these two scanners. They both claim 16-bit output, however the Polaroid scans in 12 bit and outputs in 16; and the Nikon scans in 14 bit (I think) and outputs in 16. Are both of these options as good as true 16 bit scanning? Any input would be so appreciated, since I'm really a newbie on this subject, but I do want to scan in 16 bit. Barbara - My impression is that neither is as good as true 16-bit scanning would be, that each scanner's software necessarily puts its lower high-bit scan in a two-byte/16-bit wrapper for the computer, hopefully without doing any harm by supplying the missing bits. I don't see how that could be as good as actually having used all 16 bits in the measurement of the colors. But I don't know of a true 16-bit option, and I'm just getting started with the SS4000. Sam
filmscanners: D1x (was: Digital Shortcomings)
Thanx, Larry. For a few happy hours there, I thought I might get one--the web site was pretty impressive. Meanwhile, back at Reality Central, it seems that I'd have to get *really lucky* with a lottery pick or a daily double to afford that beauty *plus* lenses to make it work--and then hiring an armed guard every time I used it. ;-) S, I guess it's time to re-set my sights on a target I could actually hit. But thanks for the tantalizing input. :-) Best regards--LRA From: Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:11:27 -0400 Hi Lynn, I'll answer this one. The D1x is the new digital camera from Nikon that replaces the D1. It takes all of Nikon's lenses and is going to retail for about $5300. I think that it's 5.3 megapixel camera. There is a double page picture, shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb. http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-06/2001_06_22_golf.html Larry OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Ramesh, here's a cautionary side-note: when I tried to use Adobe RGB on my system, PS reset the color parameters *globally* beyond what my Dell Trinatron monitor could compensate for--so all my scans looked much darker than they really were and reacted badly (read incredible noise) to any attempts to lighten them. This was probably a result of my inexperience in setting Color Management fields in the proper places (particularly in Windows), but the caveat is that Color management will sometimes do the unexpected (and undesired), if *all* the proper settings are not in place. And the software doesn't do this automatically. Best regards--LRA From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000? Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:13:05 -0500 Ramesh, I apologize - my message was wrong in a basic respect. The monitor profile screen will not change the color space viewed by Windows - that is set by Windows itself to be sRGB. It will change how the monitor shows the sRGB color space colors on-screen. My note to Al Bond just now will hopefully clear this up. Maris - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:26 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000? | Al Bond Wrote: | Now I'm confused - I thought that this page sets the monitor profile | rather than default | system colour space? | | If I understand you correctly... | | Using this dialog you can add many colour profiles(Using Add button) and | can also set one among them as default(Using Set as Default button). | | -Original Message- | From: Al Bond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:57 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000? | | | Maris wrote: | | Windows interprets your embedded profile as an sRGB image and adjusts the | colors accordingly. | | You will have to change your Windows Display setting (in Win98SE it's | Control Panel-Display-Settings-Advanced-Color Management) if you want to | modify this. | | Now I'm confused - I thought that this page sets the monitor profile rather | than default | system colour space? | | | Al Bond | _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Qualification first - I don't know for a fact that only colors strictly within the sRGB gamut can be displayed, but that is generally the case. Answer to the question - Photoshop cannot display those colours. A monitor cannot display colours that it cannot display. What Photoshop and similar programs do for non-sRGB colour gamuts is to alter the viewable colours so that they coincide with what the output (print, film, etc.) will be like, and then of necessity alter the non-viewable colours so that they are viewable, to the closest color displayable by the monitor. You will get an impression of what the result will be - you will not see the actual result until it is printed to paper, film, or whatever. Photoshop et.al., when showing color in another color space, will show you how the colors relate to, or compare to each other, in that color space, even though all of the colors in that color space are not viewable onscreen. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:37 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000? | Maris wrote: | I apologize - my message was wrong in a basic respect. The | monitor profile screen will not change the color space | viewed by Windows - that is set by Windows itself to be sRGB. | It will change how the monitor shows the sRGB color space | colors on-screen. | | If this is the case, how can a program like Photoshop ever display colours | outside the sRGB gamut? | | Rob | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | | |
filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors
It is - your screen is made up of phosphors and your printed images of ink. Their colors are different, so you need to translate. Bruce Fraser just posted a very good article consisting of an overview at http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html From his article: The Problem Computers don't understand color. Fundamentally, they are adding machines that juggle ones and zeros on demand. When we started using those ones and zeros to represent color on computers, we did so by creating digital equivalents of the RGB (red, green, blue) or CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) analog signals used to control the various color-capable computer peripherals, such as scanners, monitors, printers, imagesetters, and platesetters. RGB and CYMK are each systems that in essence allow three or four primary colors to be blended to create a desired color. The strength of each component signal determines how much of the corresponding primary color is used. When we adapted RGB and CMYK for representing colors digitally, we simply used numbers (8-bit numbers, which allowed 256 levels) to represent the strength of each component value. So what do we do? First, we calibrate our monitor so that it shows what it's supposed to show accurately. Then we check our printer - if it prints what the screen shows then we're happy. May printers do without any further tweaking. If it doesn't, then we have to put a filter between the computer and the printer - this is what is called a printer profile. This tells the printer to increase the magenta, tone down the cyan, or whatever. There are some stock Epson profiles for sale but I know nothing of their quality. There is also software for sale by Praxisoft, Colorvision and others with which you can create your own printer profile. I would go with the software. Maris - Original Message - From: Robert Kehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:43 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors | Alan, | | Wait a minute! I thought the whole idea of ICC color management was that | the various input and output devices could translate from one colorspace to | another using ICC profiles. I guess I don't get it! Maybe I'd better go | read up some more on ICC color management. | | I wish someone who knows more about software and hardware could tell me how | to set up my color management so I could get back to photography. : ) And | I thought wet color work was hard! : ) | | | Lost in Color Space, : 0 | | Bob Kehl | | - Original Message - | From: Alan Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: Majordomo leben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:48 PM | Subject: re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors | | | Yes, unless you are using a custom profile the native Epson driver does | indeed expect you to be in sRGB. | | Alan | | AFAIK this is normal. The gamuts of the colour spaces are | different. But it leads me to wonder - if some of the | problems I've had with colour matching between the screen | and the output on an Epson printer is that the printer | driver expects the user to be viewing an image in sRGB | not in Adobe RGB? | | Rob | | | | | Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet | |
Re: filmscanners: NikonUSA warranty service
Todd, I took the liberty of forwarding your msg to Honda Lo in Taiwan, and I'm CC'ing this one. IMHO, the Scanwit is an excellent value, compared to how bad the cheap filmscanners are, and how costly the good ones are. I've had similar problems with their Customer Service--as, I think, many Acer customers have (it took a Class Action Suit re: monitors, not scanners--to get their butts in gear in the US). Jerry Oostrom's problem is particularly perplexing--it could happen to me, next week. I *do* in fact think that the Taiwanese are sincere about putting--and keeping--a good product on the market. After all, it's in their best interest to get repeat as well as new customers. But Bean-counters, as I know them, know no national boundries--some of them are prone to look only at Short-term Profits, sort of like the well-known boiler-room operation that can fold its tent and sneak silently off into the night, then set up again next day in another boiler room with another name. Acer has too much invested to do this, though they've made some serious mistakes re hiring CS people with no experience with what and who they're dealing with, or even a scanner to look at. I don't believe it's restricted to Acer, either--it's aparently a widespread problem. It's possible I didn't pay as much as I should have, to expect the kind of reliability that I need in a product--but it's possible that some have, and didn't get the reliability they paid for (I have a very specific flatbed in mind ;-) ). It would be nice if mfgrs paid a little closer attention to the details and their customers. Otherwise, we may be around longer than they will, I allus says. ;-) Best regards from the Rust Belt--LRA + From: Todd Radel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonUSA warranty service Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:57:06 -0400 Lynn wrote: I think the answer, if any OEMs are reading, is that the techs need the training, and they need to be involved, i.e. doing a bit of scanning for their own pleasure. An auto mechanic who doesn't drive isn't likely to be very reliable. Or, at the very least, to at least have laid eyes on the product they're supposed (alleged?) to be supporting! Case in point: the Acer techs who have never seen a 2740, had no film scanners on their desks (or even in a nearby lab) in which to reproduce users' problems or to become familiar with the product, and had no idea what MiraPhoto was, let alone SCSI. And they freely admitted all of this to me over the phone. Lynn, your analogy doesn't go far enough. It's more like an auto mechanic who has never even seen a car, but has read about them in _Popular_Mechanics_ and feels qualified to diagnose engine problems over the phone. Next time I have a problem, you can bet I won't bother calling Acer for help -- I'll post here instead. You can't support users if you haven't been there and done that yourself. Granted, most hardware companies try a little harder than Acer has. It's really a shame, because overall my 2740 is a nice piece of hardware for the price -- but I can't recommend one without lots of qualifications. -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem
I did nto read the post thoroughly; but I would suggest that some of the difference may very well be that your monitor is set at a different color tempurature than those that you looked at which would effect the rendering of the gamma setting. Moreover, you may not have hour monitor's brightness and contrast settings set at the same levels as was the case on the other monitors. Gamma settings is only one component in monitor calibration; monitor calibration is not the same thing as color management but merely the first step in color management. For WYSIWYG to work across multiple systems, all the systems have to be calibrated to the same standard of color temperature, gamma, white point and black point, brightness and contrast. Not to be funny; but how sure are you fo the acccurracy of your step wedge? Most commercial step wedges are created using precision measurement instruments and printed to precisely measurable standards. Is it possible that you personnally created step wedge may be out of gamut at the dark end with respect to your monitor? Is it possible that your web sit files might be tagged with profiles that have small or inapproriate working color spaces so that those receiving the image get images that their systems correct to the embedded profile? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem I know this topic is revisited ad nauseum, but I have just discovered that what I thought was the Right Thing To Do does not appear to be right at all. On my system, Adobe Gamma setup seems to be worse than no setup at all. I have cross posted this to Epson7x7, filmscanners, scan and digital silver lists. This post has become very long, read it if you are interested, but the essence of my question is ... ** Please look at my simple greyscale step wedge at www.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/stepwedge.htm and tell me if setting this up for equal visual steps is a valid way of setting screen gamma, and does *your* monitor show this wedge accurately? ** My problem was to make my recently web-published photos look reasonable on other people's monitors. I use PS5.5 and a Sony 400PS monitor. I thought I had this all sussed, because I had religiously used Adobe Gamma to give me what I assumed would be, maybe not perfect, but at least ball-park OK settings. I then looked at my pubescent website on someone else's computer to discover all my deep beautiful saturated colors were pale, insignificant and plain ugly. I checked a couple of other computers and while they vary, generally they give the same result. My conclusion therefore was that for some reason my screen gamma is set to make my screen look too dark. So I checked Adobe Gamma again but it gave me the same settings. I can't afford a proper calibrator at this time, but decided to go back to basics on the assumption that a step wedge greyscale from 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 should look balanced on my screen and the steps should all be visible and roughly the same brightness difference between adjacent steps across the scale. I constructed a simple step wedge of 17 steps (0,0,0; 16,16,16; 32,32,32 ...255,255,255) and it looked bad. The bottom 3 steps were all black, which seemed to confirm that my monitor was NOT adjusted correctly. So I tried then to adjust gamma so that my stepwedge looked ok. The problem is that to achieve this, the gamma has to be set so high as to be almost off the scale. This is the same whether I use the slider on Adobe Gamma Utility, or a different setting available in my Matrox card adjustment software. In both cases the gamma required to make the step wedge look OK is way up the top end of the adjustment. And of course all my wallpapers and in fact all my images now look pale and washed out. I have since looked at other photo sites to see how they look with my new settings, and the situation is still confused. On some sites their images now look washed out, others look OK. The average would be roughly half way between my Adobe Gamma setting and my Step Wedge setting. I am now completely confused, but aware that most of us are probably making false assumptions about how other peoples' web photos are meant to look. For example, Lawrence Smith has a critique site whose address was posted on a list today - at http://www.lwsphoto.com/06_25_critique.htm. I looked at this rather beautiful photo but didn't like how dark the stem and leaves were, which agreed with a few of the comments posted at the site. But now that I have adjusted to my Step Wedge gamma and looked again, the photo looks completely different, and the stem and leaves are fine. Which is right? There is a HUGE difference. Any answers to my questions
RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Well I'll be damned. ;-) I guess I should have remembered you were a Newbie, but anytime I've ever done that (not secured the center section, that is), the mechanism would start to load and then sit there and grunt. OK, I've learned that not all Scanwits are equal (as I had suspected). :-) My 42-year-old slides (mostly) did fine on a Scanwit. For those which didn't, Vuescan was a real help. BTW, as a new Acer user, you'll want to look into the Photoscientia site. Best regards, and keep having fun--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:11 -0600 What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, /fn ps: I picked up a box of european travel/tourist junk (maps, postcards, etc.) from an auction tonight, and found a couple hundred commerical slides in the bottom! These are from the late 70's and early 80's. THey are all in the original boxes/pouches - I have started scanning them in for fun and practice and the images are fantastic (to a lame newbie like me!) I am surprised the color has survived this long. I guess being in a storage container for the past 15 years didn't hurt them! I won't be getting too much sleep tonight - this is just way to much fun! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Womack Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:49 PM To: Majordomo leben.com Subject: re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem I've never had this happen, only two thoughts come to mind. The clips on the film carrier are not CLIPPED tightly, double squeeze them to make sure. Defective. Check the film strip holders and if those are tight, exchange it! alan Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I will get a different frame back - ie. selecting 4 returns 5. This also occurs when batch scanning - ie. I will only get 3 of the 4 frames and a blank. I have tried both MiraPhoto and Vuescan when this occurs and it is repeatable in both (it happens every time) once it starts happening. I don't see any obvious sequence that leads to it. I somes have scanned in 10 to 15 strips with no problem. Once the problem occurs it is repeatable 100% until I turn the Scanwit off and back on. I have tried both with and without a SCSI terminator. Any suggestions before contact Tech Support? (I called tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour before I gave up.) Frank Nichols Newbie - and proud of it! Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Microtek 4000 problem.
Assuming that the carrier was properly loaded (and I'm sure you did it a few times to make certain), the advance mechanism probably slipped a cam, or whatever those things do. Returning it was the right choice. Best regards--LRA From: Mark Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Microtek 4000 problem. Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:15:56 +1000 Just wondering if anyone has had a similiar problem with the Microtek/Polaroid 4000. The software would recognise when the film carrier was inserted, however when trying to scan, the film carrier would not move. The scanner just made a lot noise. I have just returned the scanner to the Australian distributor, at least its still covered by warrenty. Any ideas what the problem could be? regards, Mark _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need more ram and a bigger drive.
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it. Larry Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need more ram and a bigger drive. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 vs. Nikon L4000
Sam, Rather get involved with the specmanship issues. I suggest you try each. Polaroid offers a 30 day good as gold guarantee so if your are dissatisfied for ANY reason you can return it to your dealer for a full refund, excluding any shipping costs. David -Original Message- From: Sam A. McCandless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Barbara White Subject:Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 vs. Nikon L4000 I'm trying to decide between these two scanners. They both claim 16-bit output, however the Polaroid scans in 12 bit and outputs in 16; and the Nikon scans in 14 bit (I think) and outputs in 16. Are both of these options as good as true 16 bit scanning? Any input would be so appreciated, since I'm really a newbie on this subject, but I do want to scan in 16 bit. Barbara - My impression is that neither is as good as true 16-bit scanning would be, that each scanner's software necessarily puts its lower high-bit scan in a two-byte/16-bit wrapper for the computer, hopefully without doing any harm by supplying the missing bits. I don't see how that could be as good as actually having used all 16 bits in the measurement of the colors. But I don't know of a true 16-bit option, and I'm just getting started with the SS4000. Sam
RE: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need more ram and a bigger drive. I seemed to have slipped in an extra zero. Make that 4,800 dpi.
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
I thought it was add a zero day.. Larry --- Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it. You mean 100GB, do you? That would be enough for only 5 scans. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Lynn, Last first, I have read everything on the Photoscientia site twice and expect I will again. I first got interested in scanning/digital photo editing when I bought an HP 5370 flatbed (1200dpi) and tried to scan some negatives. There is NO comparison between that and the Scanwit. However, I have to take exception with almost everyone everywhere. For printing at 5x7 scanning negs from a 1200dpi flatbed works. I have compared some printouts (at 5x7) using both the Scanwit and the HP and there is a difference, but the unclean masses (my wife and neighbors) don't notice even though if both printouts are shown side by side then the Scanwith image always wins. For me the difference is: 1. Cleaner data to work with. 2. More resolution means I can do more cropping. 3. I can print at 8x10 when I get the urge. 4. Vuescan works with both, but multipass scanning on the HP has registration problems (ie. looks like a double exposure.) and multipass scanning on the scanwit results in data that is, to this newbie, amazingly clean. I have only been at this for a couple months now, but it is a lot of fun! I really got a kick out of my neighbors face when I returned a printout of her an her new grandson. The picture had been a digital snapshot in a kitchen with peeling paint, dirty dishes, etc... I removed the background and added a studio blurred color background, enhanced the color and lighting, and then took about 20 years of her face (soften wrinkles, remove spots, etc.!) Anyway, back to the point, my next major challenge is color management. I spent about the first 6 weeks getting prints with muddy colors and a cyan cast. Then I discovered sRGB. I scan in sRGB, work in PS in sRGB and print to my Epson 980 in sRGB and the match to my monitor is almost perfect. However, reading the posts here recently it appears I may be giving up some gamat doing that, so my next steps are: 1. Get a calibration system - with a spyder. 2. Get a new printer (looking for an Epson 1270 or 1280) 3. Figure out what the max gamat I can get from the printer and how to get it to match my monitor. Thanks for your help - sorry for taking up the bandwidth! /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem Well I'll be damned. ;-) I guess I should have remembered you were a Newbie, but anytime I've ever done that (not secured the center section, that is), the mechanism would start to load and then sit there and grunt. OK, I've learned that not all Scanwits are equal (as I had suspected). :-) My 42-year-old slides (mostly) did fine on a Scanwit. For those which didn't, Vuescan was a real help. BTW, as a new Acer user, you'll want to look into the Photoscientia site. Best regards, and keep having fun--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:11 -0600 What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, /fn ps: I picked up a box of european travel/tourist junk (maps, postcards, etc.) from an auction tonight, and found a couple hundred commerical slides in the bottom! These are from the late 70's and early 80's. THey are all in the original boxes/pouches - I have started scanning them in for fun and practice and the images are fantastic (to a lame newbie like me!) I am surprised the color has survived this long. I guess being in a storage container for the past 15 years didn't hurt them! I won't be getting too much sleep tonight - this is just way to much fun! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Womack Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:49 PM To: Majordomo leben.com Subject: re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem I've never had this happen, only two thoughts come to mind. The clips on the film carrier are not CLIPPED tightly, double squeeze them to make sure. Defective. Check the film strip holders and if those are tight, exchange it! alan Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I
Re: filmscanners: NikonUSA warranty service
If they do their support like some other software companies, they have at least two levels of Techies. One level is the 'free support' people, who have been trained in the mysteries of accessing the program knowledge base. Anything not indexed with the words used by the caller can not 'normally' be found. For reasonably competent Techies, you have to go up a level to those who are supposed to be available under a paid-support plan. The best you can usually hope for is that a stumped 'free' tech will put you on hold and walk over to a competent one, and see if he/she can get an intelligible answer. This is what I get from an outfit that used to be an industry leader in free support. Hersch At 08:48 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Todd Radel wrote: Or, at the very least, to at least have laid eyes on the product they're supposed (alleged?) to be supporting! Case in point: the Acer techs who have never seen a 2740, had no film scanners on their desks (or even in a nearby lab) in which to reproduce users' problems or to become familiar with the product, and had no idea what MiraPhoto was, let alone SCSI. And they freely admitted all of this to me over the phone. This AM, while talking to a Nikon tech, I did a scan using the stand-alone version of NikonScan, per the tech's request. When the scan is complete, you have your scan in a window in NikonScan. I asked the tech if there was a way (inside this program) to look at the individual color channels. I was met with a resounding Huh? The tech clearly had no idea what I was talking about. This seems a bit lame for someone whose job it is to support film scanner users. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it. You must have meant 100gb. Today is truly a bad day for extra zeros.
Re: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem
Me too I struggled a lot with calibrating my Viewsonic PF815 22' monitor. I used Adobe Gamma on the Gamma-space 2.2 monitor calibration chart made by Timo Autiokari on www.aim-dtp.net. and http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/index.htm. He made also many other gamma charts. I downloaded the 2.2 chart and placed it as the desktop wall. Withy Adobe Gamma I managed to get a quiet good calibrated monitor on all the grey values from deep black to high white. When looking at the Yellow Rose from Lawrence W.Smith in PS6.01 I can see clearly the subtle details in the leave and the beautifull colors in the rose. It indicates me that my calibrtion is correct. I suggest you try this too and see what it gives... Jean-Pierre Verbeke - Original Message - From: laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:57 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem I did nto read the post thoroughly; but I would suggest that some of the difference may very well be that your monitor is set at a different color tempurature than those that you looked at which would effect the rendering of the gamma setting. Moreover, you may not have hour monitor's brightness and contrast settings set at the same levels as was the case on the other monitors. Gamma settings is only one component in monitor calibration; monitor calibration is not the same thing as color management but merely the first step in color management. For WYSIWYG to work across multiple systems, all the systems have to be calibrated to the same standard of color temperature, gamma, white point and black point, brightness and contrast. Not to be funny; but how sure are you fo the acccurracy of your step wedge? Most commercial step wedges are created using precision measurement instruments and printed to precisely measurable standards. Is it possible that you personnally created step wedge may be out of gamut at the dark end with respect to your monitor? Is it possible that your web sit files might be tagged with profiles that have small or inapproriate working color spaces so that those receiving the image get images that their systems correct to the embedded profile? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem I know this topic is revisited ad nauseum, but I have just discovered that what I thought was the Right Thing To Do does not appear to be right at all. On my system, Adobe Gamma setup seems to be worse than no setup at all. I have cross posted this to Epson7x7, filmscanners, scan and digital silver lists. This post has become very long, read it if you are interested, but the essence of my question is ... ** Please look at my simple greyscale step wedge at www.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/stepwedge.htm and tell me if setting this up for equal visual steps is a valid way of setting screen gamma, and does *your* monitor show this wedge accurately? ** My problem was to make my recently web-published photos look reasonable on other people's monitors. I use PS5.5 and a Sony 400PS monitor. I thought I had this all sussed, because I had religiously used Adobe Gamma to give me what I assumed would be, maybe not perfect, but at least ball-park OK settings. I then looked at my pubescent website on someone else's computer to discover all my deep beautiful saturated colors were pale, insignificant and plain ugly. I checked a couple of other computers and while they vary, generally they give the same result. My conclusion therefore was that for some reason my screen gamma is set to make my screen look too dark. So I checked Adobe Gamma again but it gave me the same settings. I can't afford a proper calibrator at this time, but decided to go back to basics on the assumption that a step wedge greyscale from 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 should look balanced on my screen and the steps should all be visible and roughly the same brightness difference between adjacent steps across the scale. I constructed a simple step wedge of 17 steps (0,0,0; 16,16,16; 32,32,32 ...255,255,255) and it looked bad. The bottom 3 steps were all black, which seemed to confirm that my monitor was NOT adjusted correctly. So I tried then to adjust gamma so that my stepwedge looked ok. The problem is that to achieve this, the gamma has to be set so high as to be almost off the scale. This is the same whether I use the slider on Adobe Gamma Utility, or a different setting available in my Matrox card adjustment software. In both cases the gamma required to make the step wedge look OK is way up the top end of the adjustment. And of course all my wallpapers and in
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and slides. Hersch At 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: . BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Oh, you might think so ;) - but see below Nishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence Institute, so appears to know his stuff. It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the heebie-jeebies... INDUSTRY NEWS Warning: Negative base deterioration If you haven't been using polyester based film (such as Kodak Estar base films), then I expect that most of you won't have any negatives left within a few decades. Let me give you the sad story first before I talk about the whys and hows. I got a call around 1992 or so from Evelyn New York photographer known for her coffee table books in the 1950s and 60s of European cities. She called because she went into her negative collection and found that they were all badly distorted and the emulsions were lifting off. We had been researching this problem since 1988 and were very aware of what the problem was. I had to tell her that her life's work (other than what books and prints were already out in the world) was gone and there was nothing that could be done. A few could be saved by special methods, but it's so labor intensive that of her thousands of negatives, it would only be worth treating a couple. (snip) Douglas Nishimura Research Scientist, Image Permanence Institute Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Yeah Tony, that was news to me, too. I was under the misassumption that film was the best archival medium around. Perhaps CD's or otherbacked up digital storage is best, if for no other reason than you can copy it forward without any loss beforeyour digital media's(CD, tape, etc) archival life expires. BK - Original Message - From: Hersch Nitikman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings) Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and slides. Hersch
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote: OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:52:11 +0200 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it has been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO 320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more overexposed than others. ISO320 will generally improve most ISO400 materials, without causing problems. Do you have any s/w control over gamma at scan time? IE anything you can dial in after preview to control gamma of the final scan. Vuescan's 'Image brightness' controls both gamma and brightness in an interlinked fashion. Are improvements available there? And what film characterisation are you using, and with what film? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Lynn wrote: Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg. Well, let's be more specific about this - scanning a BW neg in RGB looks the same as scanning it in IR. It's *not* simply black in IR. I haven't looked at the comparison in detail to see if there's any minor differences like focus or contrast. OTOH, it seems like it would create a perfect mask if the neg were scratched, because the IR *would* pass through the scratches. No. See above. An area of pure white on the neg (black in the original scene) will pass IR just as effectively as a scratch. So as I said earlier, you can't tell what is image and what is a scratch. The scratch could be real detail like a fine wire across bright sky. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: ISO 320 was RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Tony wrote: ISO320 will generally improve most ISO400 materials, without causing problems. I presume you're talking C41 films here, Tony? I also presume you're saying that exposing a C41 400ASA film at EI320 improves the results but doesn't require any special treatment at the lab? Just checking that you're not talking about slide films. :) (most labs I've spoken to claim that C41 can't be pushed or the equipment doesn't allow it anyway, and that the latitude of most print films makes it un-necessary) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Checked it out and found it to be most interesting. But the lingering question remains why has Minolta put out any press releases or web site notices as to release dates and potential prices. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:00 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered that this does not necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for films from around the 1960s and 70s or before for the most part. Thus, for images on that film stock, scanning them to CD may be a good idea; but there is no need to panic and rush to archiving on CD-R for images on contemporary films since the newer film bases may last as long or longer than the CD-Rs. The problem was also recognized with respect to video tapes. The U.S. National archives were given video tapes of the various space adventures in the 1960s and 70s by NASA, which were recorded on acetate bases; when the Archives opened the sealed cannisters with the video tapes, they found clear accetate wound around thecores with metalic iron dust on the from the tapes on the bottom of the cannister. They were totally and permanently lost. The conclusion that one can draw is that there is no totally permanent archival materials that last forever or, in the case of photographic images, the with certainty will last for centuries no matter what you do. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch NitikmanSent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and slides. HerschAt 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: . BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.Oh, you might think so ;) - but see belowNishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence Institute, so appears to know his stuff.It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the heebie-jeebies...INDUSTRY NEWSWarning: Negative base deteriorationIf you haven't been using polyester based film (such as Kodak Estar base films), then I expect that most of you won't have any negatives left within a few decades. Let me give you the sad story first before I talk about the whys and hows. I got a call around 1992 or so from Evelyn New York photographer known for her coffee table books in the 1950s and 60s of European cities. She called because she went into her negative collection and found that they were all badly distorted and the emulsions were lifting off. We had been researching this problem since 1988 and were very aware of what the problem was. I had to tell her that her life's work (other than what books and prints were already out in the world) was gone and there was nothing that could be done. A few could be saved by special methods, but it's so labor intensive that of her thousands of negatives, it would only be worth treating a couple.(snip) Douglas Nishimura Research Scientist, Image Permanence InstituteRegards Tony Sleephttp://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Moreno Polloni wrote: Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it. _ That is terrabull. ;^) You must have meant 100gb. Today is truly a bad day for extra zeros.
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta Dimage 7 digital camera. 5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499. Those specs numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a skinflint like me... MarkT From: Shough, Dean Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:00 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html Medium format, 4800 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. (zero deleted to avoid further comment..!)
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Larry said: Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it. Ah. That explains the new ATA/IDE extension I've read about, which will cover drives up to 144PB (that's petabytes). At 1,000 GB you would definitely need a new BIOS. (And yes, I know Larry meant 100 GB not 1000 GB.) Of course, you couldn't pay me to use a Maxtor drive anyway, due to some very bad experiences...but that is completely off topic. -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together http://www.schwag.org/ PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt
