Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me) for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!! Rob Geraghty wrote: Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase Target Size. Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. I can't remember what the maximum real ppi of the 1640 is, Rick, but essentially you want to scan so you're getting that maximum. You don't want to exceed it or you're just getting interpolated data, and you don't want to scan at less or you're not making the most of the scanner's resolution. OK, I just checked the Epson site. The 1640 is 1600ppi. If you scan a 1 inch square off a frame of film, you'll get 1600x1600 pixels. Print that at 300dpi and the image will be 5.3 x 5.3. If you use the 3200ppi mode of the scanner one dimension is interpolated, but that would give you twice the print size without resampling. In my past experience there's little improvement in data once you get to the smaller of the ppi limits of a flatbed (1600ppi in this case). Hope that's some help! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick, I'm not familiar with your scanner, but I'm going to pretend that I know what I'm talking about. So fasten your seat belt; this may be a bumpy ride. Another post indicated, if I read it correctly, that your scanner has a maximum optical resolution of 3200 ppi in one direction and 1600 ppi in another. As others have stated, it's almost always best to scan at the maximum optical resolution of the scanner. You can always throw away extra pixels later if you don't need them. So, in your case, it looks you should scan at 3200 ppi. The scanner is going to "pad" one scan axis (the one that can only scan at 1600 ppi optically) with some extra pixels by making an educated guess (interpolating) at what they should be, but at least you'll get all of the data out of the 3200 ppi axis. My guess is that, of the 3 scanner parameters you need to set, "DPI" is the one that should be set to 3200. So that leaves the "Source Size" and "Target Size" parameters. I'd set both to the size of the film being scanned, such as 1x1.5 inches for a 35 mm slide. With most scanners I'm familiar with, when you get ready to scan something, you first do a "prescan" and then adjust the sides of a crop box so that it includes only that part that you want to scan. After you've set the crop lines, then you do the actual scan and only that part that you selected with the crop lines gets scanned. In the process of setting the crop lines, I suspect that the "Source Size" will be automatically set for you. You have a fourth parameter you alluded to, that being "Scale." Set it to 100 per cent. I suspect that when you do that, it will cause the "Target Size" to automatically be set the value of the "Source Size." As I said before, I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not familiar with your scanner, so none of what I'm telling you may be accurate. But a lot of scanners work the way I've explained and there is a lot of interaction between the three or four parameters. If your scanner doesn't allow for a prescan, then you'll have to set "Source Size" yourself. Set it just big enough so that all of your film gets scanned. In this case, you might very well have a larger than normal file because you had to scan in a lot of useless area around the film. It's not a problem. Simply use Photoshop (or whatever equivalent software you are using) to crop off the unnecessary stuff, and the file size will drop to a manageable size. So, in summary, scan at the highest optical resolution of your scanner (3200 ppi), set Source Size and Target Size equal to the film size being scanned, and set Scale to 100 per cent. Then, if you look at the image in Photoshop, you'll see that it is about 1x1.5 inches (for a 35 mm film scan) and has a resolution of 3200 ppi and has a pixel size of about 3200x4800 pixels. Do whatever you want to in Photoshop, then save a copy to your hard drive. Then, use Photoshop to resize the image before printing to, say 8x12 inches, and, at the same time, change the Photoshop resolution to one-eighth (because you increasing the size by a factor of eight) of its original 3200 ppi resolution, or 400 ppi. So now Photoshop has an image that's 8x12 inches, 400 ppi resolution, and still 3200x4800 pixels. (You haven't created, or thrown away, any pixels by resizing, which is usually a Good Thing.) As I mentioned in a previous post, you want to sent the printer at least 300 ppi data, so 400 ppi is more than enough for an 8x12. Boy, I hope I'm guessing correctly as to how your scanner works and that this is going to be of some help to you. Remember, you can always try different combinations of settings and look at the output from your printer to see what works and what doesn't. One final comment. Your scanner has a maximum resolution of 3200 ppi in only one axis. It's half that in the other. So, if you scan at 3200 ppi, one axis of the image is going to be half as sharp as its 3200 ppi resolution implies. We've said that you want at least 300 ppi to send to the printer, but since your image isn't as sharp along one axis as we've been assuming, you might want to send more than 300 ppi to the printer. How much more? Well, it won't be any more than 600 ppi since that's the value we'd use if both axes had optical resolutions of 1600 and we scanned at 3200. So the correct value is between 300 and 600 ppi. I did some fancy math involving root-mean-square and determine that you should send 474 ppi data to the printer when (and only when) you scan at 3200 ppi where one axis has a resolution of half that. This means that, for a 8x12 inch print from a 1x1.5 inch piece of film, the 400 ppi that we have available falls short of the 474 ppi that we would like to have. Don't worry about it. I doubt it'll make all that much difference. But it does indicate that an 8x12 from 35 mm film is a marginal situation for your scanner and you certainly wouldn't want to print anything much larger
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me) for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!! If it does the job you want it for, then it's good enough! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's another value that has to do with how many dpi the printer actually prints on paper, such as 1440 dpi. But that value is printer specific. Good to point that out. My Epson 2000P doesn't even let me set that value. It gives me a choice of printing at photo quality speed or high speed and adjusts the number of dots on the paper accordingly. We probably don't have the same driver. Anyway, with my driver in the 'main' field of the print dialog I can chose between 'automatic' and 'custom'. Automatic only lets me chose between 'quality' and 'fast'. When I chose 'custom' and configure the settings I can specify the dpi incl. other settings. My recommendation is that you tell your printer to print on paper at the highest number of dots per inch your printer is capable of (1440?) so as to get the best photo quality and that you send the image to the printer at 300 dpi. That's exactly what I do. But the highest resolution might not always be the best setting depending on the paper used. On some (cheaper) paper I seem to get worse result with the max setting. Most printers are happy if they are fed data at a density of 300 dpi. With less than that the print quality suffers. With more dpi than that, it's just a waste of good pixels and the print quality isn't any better than if 300 dpi were used. I've read on this list that some of the cheaper printers don't improve past about 240 dpi and there are some that don't stop improving until you pass 360 dpi. But a good rule of thumb is to use something close to 300 dpi. But, suppose you want to an 8x12 print. Divide 4000 by 8 (or 6000 by 12) and you find that you'll be sending 500 dpi to the printer. That's more dpi than you really need, but it won't hurt anything. I am not sure about that. If you send more dpi the printer (software?) has to downsample it. You might get better results if you let photoshop doing that. One reason for my thinking is that PS has better algorithms. But more important the sharpening should be done on the final resolution. So if you have too many dpi you first do sharpening and then downsampling instead of downsampling and then sharpening. I have to admit though that I never made any tests but always first downsample to 300dpi. One other reason why to keep the size of the printed data down is to reduce the amount of data that has to be processed and sent to the printer. (I've heard on this list that using more dpi than necessary uses more ink, but I don't think that's true. Maybe someone on the list can enlighten me.) Well, not sure about that but there might be some truth in that statement. When you set the printer to higher dpi it will print more pixels per inch. On one hand this will increase quality because now the printer can use more micro pixels to generate one pixel (the printer uses CMYK to produce 1 pixel. Some printers add another two colors which does increase accurecy further. Imagine you have a color that is between C and M. If you have an additional color that represents the value between C and M you need only one single micro-pixel. If you don't have it you need a C and M micro-pixel.). On the other hand printing more micro-pixels will use up more ink IF the droplet size is kept the same. Maybe the printer actually does decrease the droplet size for higher dpi but I have the impression this does not happen in a linear (or x^2) ratio. One indication might be that on regular paper the paper gets more 'currly' with higher dpi because it seems to get more wet (more ink). Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Hi Rick, Actually, the manual is correct. The error you are making is in the size of the file you expect you will be creating. If you are making a scan of a 35mm film frame, you don't need to scan the whole flatbed size, only 1 x 1.5, as you states. This doesn't make a 700+ meg file. The size of the file depends upon a number of things. 1) The size of then source image and the resolution used, two the number of color layers involved (black and white, grayscale, RGB, CMYK) and thirdly the bit depth of each color channel. If you use 8 bits per channel (color) on a RGB scan of one frame it will be approximately 18 megs at 2400 dpi, It will double if you scan at 16 bits per channel. The equation you used is correct, using the 300 dpi input to printer resolution, which is about correct for an inkjet printer. So, other than your assumption about the size of the file, the rest is correct. However, keep in mind that your flatbed has a maximum optical scanning ability (probably 1600 ppi on your scanner). Anything above this is simply interpolated, and provides no additional real information, so scanning beyond the maximum optical value has no advantage. You might as well allow the printer driver print at a somewhat lower dpi to accommodate the limitation of the scanner. Or you might compare what happens by increasing resolution in Photoshop or another software package, via upsampling, and see which gives a more pleasing result. As to if there is a point where these are no diminishing returns, it is higher on some printers than I originally believed, which was based upon the older Epson printers. About a year ago, someone sent me scanned samples from an Epson 1160? printer and it did show minor additional detail when going from 240 to 300 to 360 to 372.7 (which was the size he ended up with without doing any downsampling) to about 400 dpi, at which point the results pretty much plateaued. The differences beyond 300 dpi took some careful scrutinizing to see. The problems with large files are that image manipulation is slowed down, storage space gets used up and the printer spools the file more slowly. Art Rick Decker wrote: Now let's say that I want to take a 35mm slide (1x1.5in) and enlarge it to 8x12...my resolution would be 2400 according to the manua (12/1.5=8...8/1=8...300x8=2400)l. At 1600, I would have a file size of 705 megabytes!! I am sure that this is way beyond the point at which the increase in file size does not result in any more increase in data. It sounds to me like I should leave my resolution at 300 dpi/ppi...even that will give me a file size of 24megabytes which I suspect is larger than I need. For an 11x16 it would be 45 megabytes. Any advice is much appreciated.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Ray Amos wrote: Claudiu Falub wrote: Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a garbage (Nikonscan 3.0) ... Claudiu, Perhaps you should read your instructions and learn how to use your software before you start badmouthing Nikonscan software. I use it quite successfully (I use the latest version 3.1). So do many others on the usergroup. Actually I have tried Vuescan and Silverfast and like the Nikonscan software better. I have no problems. Again I suggest you learn how to use the software before you slander the entire company. More than likely you're problems are with your computer or your lack of knowhow. I do not think my software is garbage. I don't like you calling it garbage either. Nothing I can do about that though. If you live within 100 miles of Greensboro, NC I would be willing to drive to your home or office and try to help you solve your problems. Is that a threat? Jeez You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of problems. Not having their scanner or need for their software, I'm only responding based upon hundreds of postings about problems with different versions of Nikon driver software for their scanners, their filmstrip adapters, their bulk slide feeder, etc. etc. that I've read of. Actually, between the two of you, I'd say statistically Claudiu's comments more accurately represents the sentiment of more Nikon scanner users regarding their software. Of course, I'm lucky I can say this, being that I live far away from NC, and you probably won't send anyone to break my kneecaps. Art
Re: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
Lynn Allen wrote:
Hi Frank,
OK, then that would mean that the sensor array is vertical to the line of
travel, and the scan is horizontal, as we thought, and that makes sense. Now
optics *could* cause light drop-off, but frankly I don't quite understand
how that mechanism works, either. I'd almost have to see it--and
conemplating that, what I *see* is a part or two left over after I've
re-assembled my Scanwit! ;-) (I actually *did* that with an electric
typewriter, once. For some reason, it still worked! :-))
Best regards, and keep us plugged in--LRA
OK, I'm gonna try some very simple ASCII art here.
This is how scanners which move the film work. There are others (Nikon,
for example) which move the light source and CCD assembly and the film
stays put.
This is a cross section.
_
light source (remains stationary)
===FILM FRAME (which moves
left one segment
(pixel length) per
reading
.
......
... ...
... ...
| | LENS (remains
... ... stationary)
... ...
... ...
. .
.
== == == CCD sensors (remains
R.CCD GR.CCD BL.CCD stationary)
Usually either lens or CCD units move for focusing.
Art
filmscanners: Colormask correction for Kodak EPY 64T (in Vuescan) ?
Hello. I made by mistake some pictures in daylight with a Kodak 64T EPY film (tungsten film). This resulted in a blueish overcast that is very unpleasing. Does someone know a mask to apply with Vuescan to correct this blue dominant ? Thanks. -- Christian Tsotras
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
At 01:56 AM 7/8/01 EDT, Roger Miller wrote: snip Roger, there were a couple of points in your recent post to Rick Decker that I'd like to comment on. My experience with the 1640 SU is that there is absolutely no advantage to setting 3200 dpi resolution (as compared to 1600.) There are a number of scanners out there with assymetrical resolutions, and it's usually a shell game. Ditto for printer resolutions. The number that matters is the lower one. The higher number is simply for ad copy. Looks good on the side of the box -- as the marketing guys say. The other is the matter of resizing/resampling the image in Photoshop. You (and Rick) should understand the difference. In Photoshop's Image-Image Size dialog, there's a check-box labeled Resample Image. If you CHECK this box, PS will either create or throw away pixels according to the resolution, height, and width that you ask for, and the resolution, height and width of the existing image. If you UN-CHECK this box, PS will neither create nor destroy pixels; it merely changes and internal tag, somewhere in the image file, that determines the physical size of the printed image. If you scanned a 35 mm frame on the 1640SU, you get a file that's 1600 x 2400 pixels (let's use round numbers here.) If you set target size at 100% in the scanner driver (I'm working from memory here) it will arrive in Photoshop sized at 1 x 1.5. If you print it that way, you'll get a 1 x 1.5 print. So you want to resize or resample. Which to choose? Fortunately in Photoshop, it doesn't matter much -- Photoshop does a good job resampling. But just bear in mind -- with Resampling an entirely new image is created, pixel by pixel. With Resize the original pixels in the image remain untouched. (So Resize happens almost instantaneously, whereas Resample takes some time, maybe 15-30 seconds on this image, on a reasonably fast machine.) A Resize of this 1600 x 2400 image might yield, for example: -- an image 2 x 3 at 800 dpi -- an image 4 x 6 at 400 dpi -- an image 8 x 12 at 200 dpi and so on. Resize is probably more of a purist's approach. There's no possibility of degrading the image in any way. Resample will either create new pixels (by interpolation) or throw them away (by averaging and decimation.) With Resample an entirely new image is created for you. Finally... bear in mind that the scanner's rated dpi has almost nothing to do with sharpness. I can prove to you easily that the 1640's so-called 1600 dpi yields an image much less sharp than a Polaroid SprintScan Plus working at 1350 dpi -- half its rated resolution. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote: You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of problems. And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's scanner software as well. Not having their scanner or need for their software... So why add fuel to the fire, Art? rafe b.
filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!
Am I cursed? In the last 24 hrs, I have done a bit of scanning with the SS120. BTW, after I calibrated it using the Silverfast IT8, it is producing colors that are nearly dead on, saturated, rich, wonderful colors! I have however had some strange behavior from the scanner that I'm sure is not meant to occur. Three times so far it has gone dead while doing a preview. When I say dead, I mean DEAD! Power light goes dark, fan goes off, the thing basicaly shuts itself off! I can't imagine that this is a feature ;-0. As an aside, i am going to rescan the bottles and post the new calibrated images sometime today. Lawrence http://www.lwsphoto.com
filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. I am not sure I understand the settings correctly in VueScan. My scanned images are showing a lot of burned out highlights. The Photoshop histogram shows a lot of bright pixel clipping off the the right side of the histogram, confirmed by Option_clicking the white triangle. I tried scanning in both white balance and autolevels. The Help information says that I would be best with autolevels for this type image. Looking at other high brightness images, it appears I am getting a significant amount of clipping if I leave the white point setting at 0.5%. Even at white point set to 0.0%, there is a small amount of white pixel clipping. I am not clear what is accomplished by having the white point setting defaulted to 0.5%. One other thing the histogram shows: across the top of the histogram, even before I make any level adjustment, I am seeing about a dozen or so whiskers. I understand why these show up after levels adjustments, but I am not clear why I am seeing them on the unadjust image. This clipping and the whiskers are not showing up when I scan with Polaroid's software. Stan Schwartz www.tallgrassimages.com
RE: filmscanners: Where to buy
I might also suggest the vendor supports the Polaroid good as Gold guarantee without any restocking charge in case you are dissatisfied in any way. Whom knows maybe the color of the scanner case may clash with you wall paper. J David -Original Message- From: Stan Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Where to buy I have bought from all three. You need to look also at shipping charges and whether sales tax will be added to your order (depending on what state you are in if you are in the USA). Those two added charges can make a significant difference. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Where to buy I have made up my mind to buy the Polaroid 120. Maybe I am wrong, but I survived being in the military in WW II so I will probably survive any errors in selection here. I don't know where to buy. There are many sources. I have had good luck with PC Connection, but they want 2795. The cheapest is ECost. Are they reputable. B H Photo is 2695. Any advice? I am going to stick with the less software version, because I am a scanning neophyte and don't want total confusion at first. Maybe later. Thanks. This is a great list. Either you are all mostly geniuses, or I am even dumber than I think I am. Jim Sillars
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
You might try a lower Brightness setting in Vuescan and different gamma settings to deal with the highlight clipping. Maris - Original Message - From: Stan Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 | I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an | SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. | | I am not sure I understand the settings correctly in VueScan. My scanned | images are showing a lot of burned out highlights. The Photoshop histogram | shows a lot of bright pixel clipping off the the right side of the | histogram, confirmed by Option_clicking the white triangle. | | I tried scanning in both white balance and autolevels. The Help information | says that I would be best with autolevels for this type image. | | Looking at other high brightness images, it appears I am getting a | significant amount of clipping if I leave the white point setting at 0.5%. | Even at white point set to 0.0%, there is a small amount of white pixel | clipping. | | I am not clear what is accomplished by having the white point setting | defaulted to 0.5%. | | One other thing the histogram shows: across the top of the histogram, even | before I make any level adjustment, I am seeing about a dozen or so | whiskers. I understand why these show up after levels adjustments, but I | am not clear why I am seeing them on the unadjust image. | | This clipping and the whiskers are not showing up when I scan with | Polaroid's software. | | | | | Stan Schwartz | | www.tallgrassimages.com | |
RE: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!
Lawrence, Not a problem we have experienced before and every returned SS120 passes through me. I will do further inquiries here, if this continues email me directly. David -Original Message- From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120! Am I cursed? In the last 24 hrs, I have done a bit of scanning with the SS120. BTW, after I calibrated it using the Silverfast IT8, it is producing colors that are nearly dead on, saturated, rich, wonderful colors! I have however had some strange behavior from the scanner that I'm sure is not meant to occur. Three times so far it has gone dead while doing a preview. When I say dead, I mean DEAD! Power light goes dark, fan goes off, the thing basicaly shuts itself off! I can't imagine that this is a feature ;-0. As an aside, i am going to rescan the bottles and post the new calibrated images sometime today. Lawrence http://www.lwsphoto.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
I will say that some folks have not liked PolaColor Insight but hardly a week goes by without someone emailing me to say they don't know what all the fuss is about because Insight works great for them. I am unaware of anyone who has complained about the PolaColor Insight/Silverfast bundle we have been shipping for some time and with the addition of Binuscan for the Sprintscan 120 the software bundle is even more robust. Several customers have told me the software bundle was the deciding factor in purchasing the Polaroid product. David -Original Message- From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote: You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of problems. And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's scanner software as well. Not having their scanner or need for their software... So why add fuel to the fire, Art? rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!
David, Thanks so much for offer. I will let you know if it happens again. Other than this little problem, the scanner is really nice! The Silverfast with IT8 really makes a HUGE difference in the scans... A great bundle, well done. Lawrence Lawrence, Not a problem we have experienced before and every returned SS120 passes through me. I will do further inquiries here, if this continues email me directly. David
RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
The fuzz was a inferior Polaroid Insight software during at least 2 years.! Yes David ! Nikon have done the same mistakes as Polaroid did when they released the first Insight version. Pre released and poor in all respects. In other words - It took Polaroid more than 2 years to produce as you say a good Insight version. And it took Polaroid at least 1.5 year to understand the mistake and budle SS4000 with Silverfast. In my case it was to late- I had allready return the scanner to Polaroid. I think you (David) remember all the e-mail discussion we had 2 years back.( Anders Lindquist Polaroid Sweden, you and me ) The only thing now is to hope that Nikon also bundle LS4000 with Silverfast I have the new Silverfast version to LS 4000 and its works as a dream compare to NikonScan 3.1. and Polaroid Insight. Ps. my old Polaroid 35+ works also like a dream with 2.7.1 plugin and contrasty negative scannings. Mikael Risedal From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:41:19 -0400 I will say that some folks have not liked PolaColor Insight but hardly a week goes by without someone emailing me to say they don't know what all the fuss is about because Insight works great for them. I am unaware of anyone who has complained about the PolaColor Insight/Silverfast bundle we have been shipping for some time and with the addition of Binuscan for the Sprintscan 120 the software bundle is even more robust. Several customers have told me the software bundle was the deciding factor in purchasing the Polaroid product. David -Original Message- From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:59 AM To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote: You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of problems. And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's scanner software as well. Not having their scanner or need for their software... So why add fuel to the fire, Art? rafe b. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:28 +0930 Mark T. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 1. I have always seen many beginners, me included, get very confused about the (non-existent?!) link between image resolution (ppi) and 'printer resolution' (eg the 1440/720 dpi setting). Read the 'how much resolution do I need?' section at my site (Filmscanners|Scanner Issues|Choosing Using|Resolution) (again:) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanner Comparisons
On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 09:20:26 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My two cents. I agree with all you say Rafe.:-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:51:29 -1000 Rick Decker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If I specify my output size, how do I decide what density to pick? Read the 'how much resolution do I need?' section at my site (Filmscanners|Scanner Issues|Choosing Using|Resolution) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!
The Silverfast with IT8 really makes a HUGE difference in the scans... A great bundle, well done. In the UK and Europe we get Insight, SilverFast and BinuScan as standard. Once you get to know SilverFast, especially some of its more advanced features you'll find yourself needing to do increasing less colour/tone correction in Photoshop. You'll also find that is much quicker than Insight. BTW: the tutorials at my site have been updated to include the SS120, although little new needed to be added. Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Ian I think you shall try LS4000 with Silverfast before a judgment like this. Or was your comparision including Silverfast 5.2 1 rev04 ?? Mikael Risedal The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then I'm real sorry for you Nikon users. The SS120 comes mighty close to Imacon quality From: Ian Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:44:28 +0100 Rafe, Curious silence from the other camp. If SS120 users came to list singing its praises every day you would smell a rat and call for the exterminator :-) You can only coverup a problem for so long and I've had the the SS120 longer than most, namely April. It doesn't suffer any of the problems the Nikon seems to suffer, i.e. banding, unstable software, poor depth of field, etc. There are also a hell of a lot more SS120's in the field than 8000's. I don't here much screaming for level 2 tech support and as you have already noted they are whining here either :-) The only problems I find with the S120 were reported to the list and other forums long before the 8000ED even hit the streets. See http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/2001/Jun/0209.html David Hemingway has also commented on these problems here and elsewhere. Talking of company representatives I'm still trying to figure which stone the Nikon guys hide under :-) SS120 Problems or Disadvantages: The SS120 the 35mm strip film holder is of poor design and needs fixed. It is too damned fiddly. See the above linked message for my other thoughts on film carrier problems. You mention workarounds, well the SS120 requires one also. Medium format camera makers can't agree the distance between frames so we end up with some frames out of line on prescan. This happens more with 645 format than other sizes. The workaround is set the software for 6 by 9 and overscan. Time penalty, about 30 seconds per scan! Hint to David, with a bit of thought this could be turned to a MAJOR advantage - full size single scan panoramas. One of Nikons big selling points is ICE Cubed - Well given sufficient heat ICE will melt. I don't think Polaroid have a problem beating the Nikon in terms of hardware and overall scan quality, but the customer wants ICE and that they can't deliver, yet. Although, stranger things have happened. I'll keep looking for other problems, but it's getting awfully difficult :-) A few Pluses: The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then I'm real sorry for you Nikon users. The SS120 comes mighty close to Imacon quality when scanning anything up to 6 by 9, but the Imacon costs 4 or 5 times the price. Shadow detail is excellent. Scans are very neutral right off. Noise levels are very low and multisample scans aren't necessary. Insight 5 (and I don't like it) allows the user to scan, edit and export/save images in high Bit mode. Does NikonScan 3 allow this? Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com PS: I think the silence has just been broken, or maybe as a VERY satisfied SS120 user I just needed to crow and let you Nikon users know that the grass IS greener on the other side of the fence and judging by some of ex Nikon 8000 users on the list; the ICE has already began to melt lol _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
I find that the default gama of 2.2 is too high for most of my scans - try lowering the gama. I use 1.5 to 1.8 normally. Also, the white point % determines what percentage of pixels in the image are at 255/1024... (max value). So I normally set this to 0.05 and adjust in Photoshop where I have a histogram to se whats going on. /fn (Newbie alert: Above is based on total ignorance...) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan Schwartz Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:07 AM To: Filmscanners (E-mail) Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. I am not sure I understand the settings correctly in VueScan. My scanned images are showing a lot of burned out highlights. The Photoshop histogram shows a lot of bright pixel clipping off the the right side of the histogram, confirmed by Option_clicking the white triangle. I tried scanning in both white balance and autolevels. The Help information says that I would be best with autolevels for this type image. Looking at other high brightness images, it appears I am getting a significant amount of clipping if I leave the white point setting at 0.5%. Even at white point set to 0.0%, there is a small amount of white pixel clipping. I am not clear what is accomplished by having the white point setting defaulted to 0.5%. One other thing the histogram shows: across the top of the histogram, even before I make any level adjustment, I am seeing about a dozen or so whiskers. I understand why these show up after levels adjustments, but I am not clear why I am seeing them on the unadjust image. This clipping and the whiskers are not showing up when I scan with Polaroid's software. Stan Schwartz www.tallgrassimages.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then I'm real sorry for you Nikon users. The SS120 comes mighty close to Imacon quality Comments like the one quoted above don't really add anything useful to the list's dialog. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:56 -0500 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. Try a white point setting of 0.01% (0.0% is usually OTT), and adjust Color|Image Brightness to a smaller number to give a duller, greyer preview (hit Prev Mem after adjusting). EG, if currently 1.0, try 0.8 or so. This will avoid the clipping, and you can then adjust levels precisely in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 11:31:41 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have however had some strange behavior from the scanner that I'm sure is not meant to occur. Three times so far it has gone dead while doing a preview. When I say dead, I mean DEAD! Power light goes dark, fan goes off, the thing basicaly shuts itself off! I can't imagine that this is a feature ;-0. I would check your mains connectors, just to be sure it's not simply a bad connection deteriorating under load. If possible, try a different power lead and mains socket. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 $200 rebate
The following link will give the details of the $200 end user rebate for the Sprintscan 4000. The coupon can be downloaded via this link. David http://www.polaroidwork.com/promotions/promotion_list.jsp
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
Thanks. What's OTT? Also, I am actually scanning at 12-bits; that's the spec on the SS4000. PS treats the image like a 16-bit. Is that introducing any problem? Any idea what the fairly evenly spaced whiskers on the histogram represent? By the way, I am not able to access your website. I am getting an announcement message from the ISP, it seems. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:56 -0500 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. Try a white point setting of 0.01% (0.0% is usually OTT), and adjust Color|Image Brightness to a smaller number to give a duller, greyer preview (hit Prev Mem after adjusting). EG, if currently 1.0, try 0.8 or so. This will avoid the clipping, and you can then adjust levels precisely in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Dat doggone dust!!!
Hello! I have a umax powerlook 111 with the tranny adapter. I mainly use it to scan 6x6 color negs with VueScan. When the scanner was new, everything was fine and I was a happy camper. But over time, the dust began to torment me. Regular dust I can cope with. I'm talking about the kind that causes black lines that run straight down vertically...from top to bottom ( or bottom to top). I've removed the glass from the tranny adapter - and cleaned both inside and out. That improves the problem, but the lines usually get shifted to other locations within the frame. This has become very frustrating. Are there other areas that I should be cleaning? If so, where? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! -david-
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
I dream of someone being in a postilion to do the same thing for the 35mm scanners Patience, dear boy, patience!... :) Regards Tony Sleep Really? Now I *am* excited - although the thing that most appeals to me is the ability of some lucky bugger to have the comparison scanners at the same place at the same time because it enables a much more direct comparison - - when you see something in one and can directly try it on the other,or tweek one to match the other. Waiting... keenly Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Ouch! Yes it was the spell checker, with my help. I like the often quoted useful phrase from an old French text book - which was - Lo! the postilion has been struck by lightning! Very handy in so many situations, Julian At 02:07 08/07/01, you wrote: On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: being in a postilion to do the same thing for the 35mm scanners - LS4000, ...don't you just love it when the spell checker does that? It just reminds me how difficult it is to get good postilions these days. ___Since the invention of the horsely carriage, postilion is a word that seldom is heard. Probably if at all by people who set up funerals for heads of state etc. Otherwise, a carriage with two or four horses with riders on the horses is not seen much and probably was seldom seen even when horse drawn conveyances were in style. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
filmscanners: Scanner Reviews Link
For those trying to decide between Nikon's and Polaroid's latest medium-format scanners, you might want to have a look at http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/film_scanners/ There are at present four reviews of the 8000 (mine among them) and three reviews of the LS-120. I won't spoil the fun and tell you which one gets the higher marks. I've searched around for other user reviews, but haven't found any. Apparently there aren't that many copies of either model out in the field, quite yet. So, aside from Ian, where are the LS-120 users on this list? rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Dat doggone dust!!!
I am assuming the tram lines are dark after you have inverted the color negs to see the image as a color positive. If my assumption is correct, there are several sources: 1. If the tramlines are quite defocussed, it could be dust on the fluorscent tube(s) (the old tran head used two, the new model uses only one) and/or the white diffuser in the channel holding the fluorescent tube(s). 2. If the tramlines are only a few pixels wide, the more likely culprit is dust on the white calibration bar that is on the underside of the glass platen (the glass on the body of the scanner). The calibration bar is between the narrow window at the front and the main window used for scanning. N.B. I've also found dust on the mirrors in the scanner -- depending on which mirror is dirty the tramlines can range from defocussed (the big mirror at the beginning of the folded lightpath) to very defocussed (the smallest mirror, which is at the end of the path and is closest to the lens). These are front-surface mirrors so be very careful that you don't abrade them if you decide you want to try to clean them. --Dana -- From: david/lisa soderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Dat doggone dust!!! Date: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:16 PM Hello! I have a umax powerlook 111 with the tranny adapter. I mainly use it to scan 6x6 color negs with VueScan. When the scanner was new, everything was fine and I was a happy camper. But over time, the dust began to torment me. Regular dust I can cope with. I'm talking about the kind that causes black lines that run straight down vertically...from top to bottom ( or bottom to top). I've removed the glass from the tranny adapter - and cleaned both inside and out. That improves the problem, but the lines usually get shifted to other locations within the frame. This has become very frustrating. Are there other areas that I should be cleaning? If so, where? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! -david-
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
Stan, Your computer (and most programs) can't deal with 12 bit packages of data, so the program is converting it to the next larger package and pading the top 4 bits for you. This has no affect of the image data - just just have 3 quarts and the closest bottle it can find is a gallon. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan Schwartz Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 Thanks. What's OTT? Also, I am actually scanning at 12-bits; that's the spec on the SS4000. PS treats the image like a 16-bit. Is that introducing any problem? Any idea what the fairly evenly spaced whiskers on the histogram represent? By the way, I am not able to access your website. I am getting an announcement message from the ISP, it seems. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:56 -0500 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. Try a white point setting of 0.01% (0.0% is usually OTT), and adjust Color|Image Brightness to a smaller number to give a duller, greyer preview (hit Prev Mem after adjusting). EG, if currently 1.0, try 0.8 or so. This will avoid the clipping, and you can then adjust levels precisely in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
I don't know what OTT means either. Maybe, "over the top?" As for 12-bit scans from the SS4000 that get treated as 16-bit: it's because the folks who invented the TIF file formats only invented two of them. A 24-bit TIF format (for 8-bit per each RGB channel) and a 48-bit TIF format (for up to 16 bits per each RGB channel). The SS4000 gives you 12 bits per channel, so it would be ideal if there were a 36-bit TIF format for storing your image. But there isn't. You must use either a 24-bit or 48-bit format. If you use the 24-bit format, then you must tell your scanner software how you want it to do the scan and it will throw away the least import bits of information, per your instructions, such that the scanned image gets reduced to 8-bits per channel and will fit into a 24-bit TIF file. That method works very well if you set up the scan correctly. But some people like to do a "raw" scan that contains all 12 bits per channel because they want to use Photoshop (or some other software), rather than the scanner software, to decide which bits to throw away when they create the final 8-bit per channel image. For those people, they have no choice but to put the image (36 total bits from a SS4000) into a 48-bit file. Some extra null bits get added to "pad" the 36 bits of information so they don't rattle around too much inside the 48-bit file, but that does no harm. They'll be ignored with what ever software looks inside the 48-bit file. The only down side is that a 48-bit file takes a bit (no pun intended) more storage space than would a 36-bit file. In a message dated 7/8/2001 7:12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's OTT? Also, I am actually scanning at 12-bits; that's the spec on the SS4000. PS treats the image like a 16-bit. Is that introducing any problem?
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image. By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. Don't know if it's by accident or design, but I consider it improper behavior. In a message dated 7/8/2001 2:21:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Tony, He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to: http://www1.cix.co.uk/ Larry By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
