date:20010710



For those interested in buying their very first film 
scanner, or trading up from an existing model, I humbly 
suggest eBay as a source of very good deals, particularly 
at the moment -- where new market entries from several 
major vendors are causing a lot of turnover in equipment.

If you're unsure of which model to buy, use the web 
to get a feel for the various models -- there are many 
review sites, comments on usenet forums, and so on.  
Bear in mind that there will be a lot of hype, both 
pro and con, on almost any model.  Take the more 
extreme opinions with a large grain of salt.

To search usenet archives, go to www.deja.com.

Usenet groups that discuss scanners include (for 
example) comp.periphs.scanners, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, 
and rec.photo.equipment.medium-format.

Sites that offer reviews of various film scanners 
(either by columnists, or by the public) can be 
found via the usual web-search engines.  One of 
the better ones I've stumbled into recently is 
www.photographyreview.com

I've personally had only good luck buying photo gear 
on eBay.  Standard caveats apply, of course.  Choose 
your sellers carefully, read the fine print, and ask 
appropriate questions before you bid.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: OT: Whose dis-sin' who?

2001-07-10 Thread Arthur Entlich



Well, first of all, I was saying most of us are just as smart and rich
as the average Joe, but not necessarily moreso, so I guess you're at
least that, but, only you know if you fit the box or not ;-) 

And I'm not referring to Joe Average either, which is the moniker taken
by a very up and coming artist from this area of the world.  Here in
Canada, the average guy is referred to by some as Joe six-pack (I
assume that refers to the beverage distribution system and not abdominal
muscles) ;-).

Art

Lawrence Smith wrote:
 
 Wait a minute!  Are you saying that I might NOT be smarter and richer than
 the average Joe!?  Damn, all this time those adds have been manipulating me
 and i might just be an average schmoe after all.  I think i'm going to
 cry
 
 Lawrence
 
  They stroke
  the egos of people who already made a buying decision.  They say, you
  are unique, or special, or smarter or richer than the average Joe.  You
  know how to make good purchasing decisions.

filmscanners: CD from Scanner

2001-07-10 Thread Photoburt

I am just starting to get into digital imaging. Computers to me are not 
intuitive (to put it mildly) and I am not being modest. 

I am trying to create CDs from images on my flatbed scanner (Epson 1200U) to 
the CD. I follow the steps but I am unable to read the result. I have a 
Dell computer with Windows Me, 256 mg of RAM, a CD ROM bay and a CD RW bay, 
and an Adaptec CD writer system that came with the computer.

I called Dell and I received that did not seem right to me, so I am hoping I 
can get some other thoughts. 

What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying from the scanner 
and that my best procedure with the Adaptec software was to copy to the hard 
drive and then copy to the CD. It was also suggested that I might acquire 
another CD burner software that would do a better job. 

It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid having to fill 
up the hard drive with images. I realize that I could erase the image, but 
the procedure of copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image on the 
HD seems very cumbersome.

The tech also suggested a ZIP drive. I thought the purpose of the CD was to 
avoid having to get a ZIP drive.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject.

Thanks in advance.

 Burt

Re: filmscanners: Primefilm 1800i

2001-07-10 Thread Steve Greenbank


In the UK I think this scanner is available under several brand names
Jessops 1800U ,Black widow filmscan 2000 and Microtek Filmscanner 35. I
would suspect of these Microtek may be the real manufacturer.

Anyway there is a review of the Microtek version at :

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/sgreenbank/front_flash.php

then click reviews then scanners/cameras and its somewhere in the middle
of the list.

There are some manufacturer samples for the Black widow at
http://www.blackwidow.co.uk but they have been downsized and jpegged so they
aren't that useful - but at least give a vague idea of the end result.

Steve

- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Primefilm 1800i



 For those interested in buying their very first film
 scanner, or trading up from an existing model, I humbly
 suggest eBay as a source of very good deals, particularly
 at the moment -- where new market entries from several
 major vendors are causing a lot of turnover in equipment.

 If you're unsure of which model to buy, use the web
 to get a feel for the various models -- there are many
 review sites, comments on usenet forums, and so on.
 Bear in mind that there will be a lot of hype, both
 pro and con, on almost any model.  Take the more
 extreme opinions with a large grain of salt.

 To search usenet archives, go to www.deja.com.

 Usenet groups that discuss scanners include (for
 example) comp.periphs.scanners, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
 and rec.photo.equipment.medium-format.

 Sites that offer reviews of various film scanners
 (either by columnists, or by the public) can be
 found via the usual web-search engines.  One of
 the better ones I've stumbled into recently is
 www.photographyreview.com

 I've personally had only good luck buying photo gear
 on eBay.  Standard caveats apply, of course.  Choose
 your sellers carefully, read the fine print, and ask
 appropriate questions before you bid.


 rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!

2001-07-10 Thread Lawrence Smith


This UPS works fine.  Had it couple of years and it gets tested regularly.
Other equipment that has or is connected to it shows no abnormal behavior...
I am testing it off the UPS now to make sure...

Lawrence

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Herm
 Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:00 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!


 I have seen MANY ups that did not work.. some of them come with
 the internal
 battery disconnected for shipping and the user never read the
 instructions.. and
 has never tested the unit!

filmscanners: focus problems with LS2000

2001-07-10 Thread David Hoffman


I'm baffled by  a new set of problems with my LS2000. I'm using 
Vuescan 7.5.1, Silverfast 4.2.7 r0.5  NikonScan 2.5.1.

With NikonScan run as a plug-in or as a stand alone app I can use my 
bulk slide feeder SF200  the focus is OK (exposure isn't but then it 
never was with NikonScan). So the hardware must be OK?

With Silverfast I can do individual scans with the MA20 which are 
fine but with the bulk feeder the scans are all seriously out of 
focus. I mean miles out! I can reset the focus manually (to zero)  
get results that are merely poorly focused (mounts vary, film stock 
varies, mechanical inaccuracies) but on any of the autofocus settings 
it is completely useless.

With Vuescan I can do everything except get a sharp (focused) output 
when using the SF200.

I have recently upgraded my G3 rev1 266 desktop from system 8.6 to 
system 9 but restarting from the old 8.6 system doesn't cure the 
problem.

Any ideas out there?

David Hoffman
-- 
   __
   David Hoffman Photo Library
  http://www.hoffmanphotos.com

  phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax  +44 (0)20 8980 2041

  Photography is a fad well nigh on its last legs, thanks largely to 
the bicycle craze.
  Alfred Stieglitz 1897.

Re: filmscanners: CD from Scanner

2001-07-10 Thread Larry Berman


Are you actually expecting to scan to a folder on a CD that you haven't 
burned yet? It sounds like what you're expecting to do.

Scan and output as a NON compressed file format, like TIF or PSD (Photoshop 
file). Scan at a ppi that is larger than your expected usage of the images. 
Save the scans in a folder on your hard drive. Save the raw scans by 
burning a CD of that folder they are saved in. If your objective is to 
archive those raw scans then you are finished. But first, I would suggest 
making a second CD and test them to make sure the pictures open. Then you 
can safely delete the hard drive folder containing those raw scans. There 
are many more issues about what your work flow should be which you will 
discover by following this forum for a while. I use Adaptec's Easy CD 
software also and have never had a problem with it.

But if you're thinking that you can bypass that hard drive folder step, it 
just doesn't work that way.

Larry



I am trying to create CDs from images on my flatbed scanner (Epson 1200U) to
the CD.  I follow the steps but I am unable to read the result.  I have a
Dell computer with Windows Me, 256 mg of RAM, a CD ROM bay and a CD RW bay,
and an Adaptec CD writer system that came with the computer.


***
Larry Berman

http://BermanGraphics.com
http://IRDreams.com
http://ImageCompress.com

***

filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120


I'm new to this list.  I just purchased a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with the
Silverfast software.  I have some initial impressions to share and some
questions.  First, overall the scan quality is, IMHO, excellent and the
scanner is very fast.  For medium format I am scanning 6 cm x 9 cm slides
(mostly Velvia).  I am scanning into 48 bit raw files and then exporting to
Photoshop.  At 4000 dpi, this gives me files of about 660 Megabytes in 10
minutes!  If I scan at 1/2 maximum resolution, 2000 dpi, the scan time drops
to only 2 minutes or less for 6 cm x 9 cm slides, and I get an excellent 160
MB 48 bit file, which is 80 MB after reduced to 24 bit color.  Sharpness on
the scans is excellent.  35 mm scans are also very nice; 4000 dpi in 48 bit
mode in about 2 minutes.

Here are my questions/problems with the scanner that maybe someone can help
me with:

 1.  Did I make a mistake spending $300 extra for the Silverfast software?
The main reason I purchased the software was for the color calibration
module and IT8 slide, and because I'd heard so many great things about
Silverfast.  However, I find that, while the color calibration is very good,
it has some shortcomings, depending on the particular slide, with the
yellows and magentas; sometimes the yellows are overemphasized and the
magentas underemphasized, or vice versa, as compared to the original viewed
on a light table (BTW for those who have never worked with a custom ICC
profile for a scanner before, these shortcomings are quite minor, nothing
compared to color shifts you see without a custom-profiled scanner, but I'm
a perfectionist when it comes to color; fyi, I have a fully calibrated
workflow on a Mac G4 using Optical and a DTP92 to calibrate my monitor, so
the problem is not elsewhere in my workflow).  I am making raw 48 bit scans
and gamma correcting them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast software, and
then exporting them to Photoshop 6 (depending on the image I am doing the 48
bit editing in either Photoshop or Silverfast HDR).  Another problem I am
noticing with my raw, profiled scans is that the blackest blacks and whitest
whites are clipped in the raw 48 bit, profile-corrected, scan.  My darkest
shadow areas never get below 20 on the Photoshop histogram and the whitest
highlighs never above 235.  I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial religiously in
calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest blacks and
brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say 1.8
gamma)?  Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme values?  I
can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop 48 bit
editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command), but then
this has other effects as well. . . .

Back to my question about whether the Silverfast software bundle is worth
the extra $300, other than IT8 calibration, what does Silverfast off that
you can't just do in 48 bit mode in Photoshop 6.0?  What's the advantage of
learning an entirely new interface?  Am I missing something?  Moreover,
Photoshop has excellent masking tools, which Silverfast does not (while not
available in 48 bit mode, you can save a duplicate of the file to 24 bit
mode, mask in 24 bit mode, and then, reopening the 48 bit file, use the
masks created in the 24 bit mode on the 48 bit file).  To be fair,
Silverfast's automatic correction tool with manual override is a nice
feature, but is it worth $300?

2.  With one 6cm x 9 cm slides I've scanned (out of about 8 or 9 images
scanned), there is noticeable softness introduced by the bowing of the film
because the film carrier does not hold it perfectly flat.  (The  original
does not have this softness.)  Are there any tricks that people have come up
with to reduce this bowing?

BTW, for people who are thinking about bowing as a purchasing decision,
despite my pre-purchasing concerns and my one negative experience, I'm
overall pleasantly surpsied with the lack of bowiong for 6 cm x 9 cm slides.
Of the five or so cut 6 x 9 cm slides I've scanned thus far, there was
bowing softness in only one portion of the very top of one slide (covering
less than 5% of the overall area of the scan); in the other 6 x 9cm cut
slides I've scanned, I have not observed ANY bowing effect.  For film that
is still in strips (another 5 sample scans or so thus far), bowing does not
appear to have any effect at all; scan one end of the strip, then flip the
strip around before scanning the slide at the open end.

The thing I don't like about the Polaroid 120 mm holders, however, is that
they necessarily mask off a portion of the slide.  If the slide is in
landscape format, you are losing a small portion at the top and bottom of
the slide.  This is because the holder has a ledge to holder the slides, but
the ledge intrudes slightly into the image frame.  Overall the lost image
area is not horribly significant (you're probably left with the equivalent
of about 95% viewfinder coverage in a single lens reflex), but,

Re: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question

2001-07-10 Thread Bob Shomler


The last two versions of VueScan are loading extremely slowly and also
closing down slowly. It's taking about 20-30 seconds from clicking the icon
to having the initial VueScan screen appear. It takes the program around 15
seconds to close down now.

This happened once to me with a different model SCSI-attached scanner.  Problem was 
somehow in OS or HW communication with the scanner.  When Viescan does finish loading 
does it show the SS4000 scanner in the scan-from menu in the device tab window or does 
it show (scan from) disk?  Does the problem not occur if you load an earlier Vuescan 
version?   

--
Bob Shomler
http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm

RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again

2001-07-10 Thread Jack Phipps




This is the other 
email I promised that goes along with the previous email about scanning and 
printing resolutions. The attached file has several very fine lines at certain 
angles. Each line should print the same size. When the image improperly resized 
(and resampled) you will notice a small difference between the lines. On my 
Epson 9000 it happens when you resize to 300, 240, and almost any odd size (like 
304). It doesn't happen when you resize to 45, 90, 180 (the current size), 360 
or 720.

Jack 
Phipps
Applied Science 
Fiction

RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again

2001-07-10 Thread Jack Phipps


 -Original Message-
 From: Rick Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 ...
 Any advice is much appreciated.
...

Okay, you asked for it. This is a posting to a Live Picture news group by
our Chief Scientist Al Edgar. It is quite off topic in that it relates to
resolutions needed for printing but on topic if you are trying to determine
a scanning resolution. So if you are not interested in resolution, please
delete now.

A lot of it relates to the Epson 9000 printer we use. It is quite similar to
other Epson printers and many of the ideas and tests can be used on other
printers as well. I will include a resolution target we use to test printers
that he mentions in a separate email.

I think many of the issues mentioned here may be the same for all Epson
printer (i.e., the Epson 9000 prints at 1440 by 720 but only accepts a
maximum of 360 dpi, anything larger is resized) but I recommend you test it
out for yourself. Also, as Al states the Epson prints 254 254 254 as white
when printing at 1440 by 720, but prints some in at 720 by 720.

The rip Al refers to is the Epson printer driver residing on our Apple, not
the external rip you can purchase separately.

When I'm deciding on a scanning resolution, I decide what size I will be
printing, let's say 11 by 16. So I scan a 24 mm by 36 mm negative at 4000
ppi which yields 3780 by 5669 pixels (about 68 MB at 8 bits). At 360 dpi I
end up with a 10.5 by 15.75 inch print. If I really need 11 by 16 I'll
resize and crop in an image editor to 3960 by 5760 and print, otherwise I
put a border around it and don't resize. If I need 22 by 32 I consider two
approaches. If I'm in a hurry, I just resize it for 180 dpi and print. If I
have time and disk space, I resize it in an image editor to 7920 by 11520
(about 274 MB). It is hard to tell the difference in the final print
(between 180 and 360 upsized). If you send the Epson anything besides a
multiple of 360 (45, 90, 180, 360, 720) like 240 or 300 you will be able to
tell subtle differences when Epson resizes (see explanation below).

I hope this helps! 

Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction

This from Al--
All of my HP and Epson printer drivers resize by nearest neighbor, which
means they make square pixels. The problem is that as the printer native
resolution is approached, the pixels become randomly sized. For example, if
the native resolution is 300 and you print an image at 200 dpi, some of the
image rows will print 2 native pixels wide, and some will print 1. This
happens both horizontally and vertically, so some image pixels will count up
to 4 times as much as others in proportion to their area. If you navigate
images in Photoshop, you are acquainted with the problems of nearest
neighbor resize (Live Picture users are so lucky). Notice that an image
viewed in Photoshop at 67% or 33% is the same graininess as the same image
viewed at 100% or 50% despite being smaller, and in addition to the excess
grain, aliasing makes edges wobble and some detail disappear. This is what
happens to images you print that are not at the printer native resolution.
It is caused by image pixels being printed with randomly varying areas, or
weights, caused by nearest neighbor resize. The excess grain arises from
non-uniform averaging over an area by your eye.

There is an endearing characteristic of the Epson 9000 that I just
discovered. The Epson rip is unable to handle an image pixel three native
pixels wide. If your image is 240 dpi, the Epson rip will print alternate
rows 1/360 inch and 1/180 inch, degrading an image by giving a 4:1 weighting
of pixels on alternating rows and columns.

It is as though the native printer resolution is only 360 dpi, although it
can handle 720 as a special case. However it doesn't handle 120 dpi very
well either, which is 3/360.

To confirm this, or test your printer, generate single pixel wide un-aliased
lines at varying angles close to 0 and 90 degrees, and print this at test
dpi settings. With the Epson 9000 the lines appear to have constant
thickness only at 720, 360, 180, and 90 dpi. At 200 or 240, for example, the
lines vary widely in thickness, like a Photoshop image viewed at 67%
magnification. If any of you need a test image, e-mail me off forum.

Live Picture users are so lucky because they can build an image at 360 dpi
for an Epson printer, next week 300 dpi for an HP printer, and next month
180 dpi for an Epson printer and a print size three times larger, and all
will print with equal weighting of the underlying image pixels because Live
Picture resizes in a way that preserves pixel weighting.

What dpi is best? I carefully generated images with full detail at various
resolutions. For the Epson 9000, I saw no difference between 720 and 360, a
very slight degradation at 180, and very much loss at 90. How does this
interact with Live Picture? If you ask for a build at 180 dpi and the
underlying image is 240 dpi, Live Picture will pick the closest pyramid
level, which is 120 dpi, half the image

RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 $200 rebate

2001-07-10 Thread Alessandro Pardi

Vry interesting. Is this valid for Europe (namely, Italy), too?

-Original Message-
From: Hemingway, David J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: lunedì 9 luglio 2001 03.14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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: Primefilm 1800i

2001-07-10 Thread Jawed Ashraf


I have a 1800.  It is made by a company called Pacific Image whose website is 
at:

www.scanace.com

I have a folder of images I produced using this scanner at:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124018

Overall I came to like this scanner - though my first few scans made me howl 
in disappointment.  I bought it at Jessops (in the UK) and found that its 
driver was well out of date.  When I downloaded the latest driver from the 
webby, the images improved dramatically - so I suggest the download is 
essential.

I turned-off the auto-exposure, auto-gamma features of the scanning software.  
I did flat scans, for which I turned down the gamma control by two notches 
and reduced the contrast, I think.  The aim of this was to ensure that the 
histogram fell well within 0 and 255.  Otherwise the scanner, by default, 
clips black and white.  Also I didn't like the auto-exposure because every 
scan I did (of a single image) the colour/tonality seemed different.

I scanned in 12-bit mode (16-bit output files - 24MB per frame) and 
manipulated in PS.  I got what I consider to be pretty good results - but I'm 
not a detail/colour/tonality fascist (well I wasn't...) so I wouldn't 
recommend this scanner to anyone who considers themself a perfectionist.

The scanner can only take bare strips of film - it won't accept mounted 
slides.  You position the film by hand per frame.  I found that left-right 
centring was problematic as there are no guides - and the scanner cannot 
capture a full 36x24mm frame (it crops width by about 3-4mm and height by 
about 1mm - these are guesses).  I ended-up being pretty good at achieving the 
centring I required, judging by eye.

I was amazed to discover that this scanner performs flawlessly-aligned 
multiple scans.  A friend took some night shot brackets and with my scanner we 
were able to scan each image and line them up *perfectly* (accurate to the 
pixel) in PS.  It still amazes me...  See the following image for an example:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=240571

Overall the images are a bit grainy and noisy, but most people you show 
these images to see no problems at all.  I have found that my learning curve 
with PS has demonstrated more difference in final images between my first 1800 
scans and my last ones, than in the 1800 scans compared with the LS40 scans - 
but that is because the flat-scan technique relies upon you being skilled 
with PS to pull the image out of the data.  I don't think the auto-images 
the 1800 produces are so great - so you will have to do more work than with an 
LS40.  Also, since the scanner is not supported by Vuescan, you won't be able 
to benefit from the wonders of Vuescan.

I recommend this scanner to anyone on a seriously tight budget.  I also 
recommend it to anyone who is interested in getting a feel for this whole 
film scanning game at low cost.  You need a PC or Mac with USB.  Sell it if 
you decide you need something more serious.

Unfortunately after scanning and editing about five rolls of film, I got so 
cheesed-off dealing with scratch damage in my negs that once I discovered the 
LS40 I just knew I had to have one.  I didn't buy the LS40 for its superior 
image - but for ICE...  Yes the Nikon is superior in every way (my friend with 
the HP S20 is also rather envious of the Nikon) but as a way to try-out DIY 
film-scanning, the 1800 is good.

Of course, if you're a bit uncertain about filmscanning, then it is prolly 
worth sending in your films to get them scanned onto Kodak Photo CD.  I 
decided against this approach on the basis that I wanted control over 
cropping/exposure and also because being a bit of a geek, I wanted to get 
involved in the scanning process.  Scratch removal was just a bit too much 
like hard work though!

I will be selling my 1800, soon, now that I'm settled with the LS40.

Jawed

filmscanners: Profiling a Scanner -- Was Polaroid SprintScan 120


One thing I realize I left out from my previous (long) post about my
experiences with the SprintScan 120 was the alternative to spending $300 on
the Silverfast software.  To the extent that Silverfast doesn't offer any
significant advantages over 48 bit editing in Photoshop 6, why not spend
about $150 on ICC Scan (from www.profilecity.com), plus $40 for a Kodak IT8
35 mm slide.  With the software and slide, you can use Polaroid's Polacolor
(is that the name?) included basic software which DOES SUPPORT exporting 48
bit raw scans.  Export a 48 bit raw scan and use ICC Scan to profile it.
Voila, you have a profiled scanner with Photoshop's 48 bit editing to work
on your raw scans.

My strong suspicion is that the profiling of ICC Scan will be better than
that of Silverfast, although I'd love to hear any comments
agreeing/disagreeing with this suspicion.  I've been following an Imacon
email group, and several users on that group have had glowing comments about
ICC Scan.  It's a one trick piece of software -- it only profiles scanners.
It's up to date, and engineered (I think) by the same folks who designed
some of the Gregtag software (or from another big color profilnig company, I
can't remember which one).  It should do it's one trick very well, and user
reports seem to confirm that it does.

Howard A. Slavitt
www.enaturephoto.com

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120

2001-07-10 Thread Raphael Bustin



snip

Thanks for the review, Howard.  First one I've seen 
on the list, other than Ian's.

I have no comments on Silverfast vs. Insight... 
pick your poison, as they say.

I will be interested in hearing of any tricks 
you come up with to deal with the bowing of 
large negatives.  Same problem here on the 
8000, to some extent.  I've never used glass 
carriers, but have a feeling I may need to, 
in order to get ultimate image sharpness.

For cleaning film, I use one of those 
cans of compressed air.  Others have mentioned 
the StaticMaster brush.  Nice having ICE to 
deal with the worst of the crud, though.


rafeb.

Re: filmscanners: CD from Scanner

2001-07-10 Thread Gordon Tassi


Burt:  Though I do not have a Dell I do have the same software.  I have
found that the CD writer software woorks a lot better if you go through
the workflow the Dell rep. suggested.  It may be cumbersome but it does
work best.  I have usually done some cleaning and sharpening and
sometimes croping in PS before placing the image(s) on the CD.  Going to
Windows Explorer to delete the files, to me, is only a minor
inconvenience unless your HD has a very low storage capacity.  I usually
scan only as a tif  and I have lots of room with what is now a
relatively small (6 gig) drive that really has about 1 gig free to work
with.  I definitiely do not deal with the images one at a time.  That
would really make the process cumbersome.

Gordon

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am just starting to get into digital imaging.  Computers to me are
 not
 intuitive (to put it mildly) and I am not being modest.

 I am trying to create CDs from images on my flatbed scanner (Epson
 1200U) to
 the CD.  I follow the steps but I am unable to read the result.  I
 have a
 Dell computer with Windows Me, 256 mg of RAM, a CD ROM bay and a CD RW
 bay,
 and an Adaptec CD writer system that came with the computer.

 I called Dell and I received that did not seem right to me, so I am
 hoping I
 can get some other thoughts.

 What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying from the
 scanner
  and that my best procedure with the Adaptec software was to copy to
 the hard
 drive and then copy to the CD.  It was also suggested that I might
 acquire
 another CD burner software that would do a better job.

 It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid having to
 fill
 up the hard drive with images.  I realize that I could erase the
 image, but
 the procedure of copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image
 on the
 HD seems very cumbersome.

 The tech also suggested a ZIP drive.  I thought the purpose of the CD
 was to
 avoid having to get a ZIP drive.

 I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject.

 Thanks in advance.

   Burt

RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again

2001-07-10 Thread Norman Unsworth


Tony, 

FWIW, I just hit your site at http://www.halftone.co.uk , no problem.

Norman Unsworth

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman
 Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:25 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: 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
 
 ***

Re: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question

2001-07-10 Thread Tony Sleep


On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:17:29 -0500  Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

 The last two versions of VueScan are loading extremely slowly a
 Anyone else notice this?

Nope.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio  exhibit; + film scanner 
info  comparisons

Re: filmscanners: CD from Scanner

2001-07-10 Thread Hersch Nitikman


I have to agree with the Dell Tech. What I would suggest is
to create a folder on the hard drive special for the CD burning process,
and dump the scans to it. Then you can do all of them in an uninterrupted
sequence, and when it is done, and the CD is checked, you just erase
everything ion that folder. Save the empty folder for the next set. I do
something of this sort even when I already have the files on my hard
drive. You want to isolate what you will be burning from all others.

Incidentally, I always run my scans through Photoshop first, and tweak
them before scanning. I like my scans, most of the time, but I would
rather save the best I can do. 
Hersch
At 05:32 AM 07/10/2001, you wrote:
I
am just starting to get into digital imaging. Computers to me are
not 
intuitive (to put it mildly) and I am not being modest.

I am trying to create CDs from images on my flatbed scanner (Epson 1200U)
to 
the CD. I follow the steps but I am unable to read the
result. I have a 
Dell computer with Windows Me, 256 mg of RAM, a CD ROM bay and a CD RW
bay, 
and an Adaptec CD writer system that came with the computer. 
I called Dell and I received that did not seem right to me, so I am
hoping I 
can get some other thoughts. 
What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying from the
scanner 
and that my best procedure with the Adaptec software was to copy to
the hard 
drive and then copy to the CD. It was also suggested that I might
acquire 
another CD burner software that would do a better job.

It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid having to
fill 
up the hard drive with images. I realize that I could erase the
image, but 
the procedure of copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image on
the 
HD seems very cumbersome. 
The tech also suggested a ZIP drive. I thought the purpose of the
CD was to 
avoid having to get a ZIP drive. 
I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject. 
Thanks in advance. 

Burt

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120

2001-07-10 Thread Ian Lyons


Howard,


I copied the following response to the scanner list.


 I am making raw 48 bit scans
 and gamma correcting them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast software, and
 then exporting them to Photoshop 6 (depending on the image I am doing the 48
 bit editing in either Photoshop or Silverfast HDR).  Another problem I am
 noticing with my raw, profiled scans is that the blackest blacks and whitest
 whites are clipped in the raw 48 bit, profile-corrected, scan.  My darkest
 shadow areas never get below 20 on the Photoshop histogram and the whitest
 highlighs never above 235.

Your private email wasn't as detailed as the above explanation and so my
answer probably didn't address all your concerns. Sorry about that.

Your highlights and shadows are not being clipped. If the scanner (any
scanner) outputs in linear raw (no gamma correction) all the data will be
stacked towards the shadow end, but with a scanner such as the SS120 or the
Nikon 4000/8000 you shouldn't find that it is tight up against the Level 0
buffer (maybe level 1). When we apply the gamma curve the data will be
stretched out across the histogram. With gamma 2.2 you are finding it starts
about level 20 and finishes at level 235. Changing the gamma to 1.8 will
certainly bring it down to about level 8/10, but level 0 requires gamma 1.

If your images stop at level 235 they don't have any real bright highlights.
I have scanned a few images that go from level 15 to level 250 (in gamma
2.2). Since you are outputting the image without SilverFast applying any
other edits; the end points will rarely if ever stretch from end to end and
they shouldn't or you have just wastes $3000plus on a scanner that has
limited dynamic range. I would be surprised if any of the 14bit units
produced end to end data for a linear raw scan. The only way that could be
achieved is if the software forced to clip to highlight and shadow and I'd
want my money back from the outfit who wrote that software and worry about
the guys who made the scanner. What do they not want me to see?


I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial religiously in
 calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest blacks and
 brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say 1.8
 gamma)?  Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme values?  I
 can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop 48 bit
 editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command), but then
 this has other effects as well. . . .

Fortunately, you haven't lost anything; the data in your shadows is all
there to be extracted. True clipping is when the data ends in a cliff at
level  0 or 255 and nothing exists at either of those points, it's gone
forever. Going to gamma 1.8 means the image will be darker and will
therefore require more editing to get it to the brightness level you want.
You can set SilverFast HDR to clip the end points quite easily - just set
the Auto threshold for highlight and shadow to about 7 or 8 % and you'll get
what you want. I suggest you don't, but you feel that something's needs to
be done then choose 4 or 5% (you'll need some headroom for later). see Page
9 of the HDR tutorial for the screen garab off the dilaog box


 Moreover,
 Photoshop has excellent masking tools, which Silverfast does not (while not
 available in 48 bit mode, you can save a duplicate of the file to 24 bit
 mode, mask in 24 bit mode, and then, reopening the 48 bit file, use the
 masks created in the 24 bit mode on the 48 bit file).  To be fair,
 Silverfast's automatic correction tool with manual override is a nice
 feature, but is it worth $300?


Whilst not being as effective as the more powerful masking tools found in
Photoshop, which you rightly point out are only available in 8bit mode,
SilverFast does indeed have two masking in tools (see the selective colour
toolbox). You'll find a freehand and Polygon lasso  tool that is actually
quite useful at times. When you combine the selection tools with the
selective colour tool you have an extremely powerful editing facility.

You haven't wasted your money. I think there is a lot to SilverFast that you
haven't quite discovered yet. That's said LaserSoft don't make life easy for
the user with their poor documentation for version 5.


I hope the above helps a tad more than my earlier response



Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com

RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120


Overall, I admit, I like Silverfast.  The more I use it, the more I like
it's basic structure, automatic corrections with detailed options for manual
override, i.e., here's what our artificial intelligence thinks you should
do, now go improve on it, if you have the inclination and/or time.  The
documentation is really lacking, however.  Even the documentation for
version 4, while apparently comprehensive, is obscure, at best. Features are
described, but still not clarified. Thank God (or at least Ian) for Ian's
great tutorials to get one started.

Ian Lyons wrote: You haven't wasted your money. I think there is a lot to
SilverFast that you
haven't quite discovered yet. That's said LaserSoft don't make life easy for
the user with their poor documentation for version 5.

filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.

2001-07-10 Thread Wilson, Paul

Title: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.

Hello All,

I received my SS120 yesterday and my first impressions are mostly quite favorable vs. the LS-8000. I've not sure I had enough time with the LS8000 (or the SS120) to truly differentiate scan quality but both are very good. Also, I've never owned a film scanner before so I'm not sure I'm experienced enough to really judge. Both are plenty capable for my purposes (output to an Epson 1270).

So far, I do see two distinct advantages of the Polaroid. One is that the Insight software is more stable than NikonScan 3.1. The machine I'm using is a dual PIII 866 with 512MB (need more) and a SCSI disk system running W2K server. NikonScan used to regularly due weird things like disappear (not crash, it would just disappear with no error) and it wouldn't find the film holder unless everything was done in the correct order. I'm also not having any problems with AF or banding or anything like that.

The other advantage is that I like the medium-format film holder much better. I always found the Nikon's MF strip holder to be a bit clumsy to use and it was difficult to get the film flat. I find the Polaroid's much better here. I haven't used the Polaroid's mounted 35mm slide holder yet though it doesn't seem quite as good as the Nikon's. This one is also plastic vs. cast metal for the MF and 35mm strip holders. Why is this?

One disadvantage of the Polaroid is that it's LOUD. The Nikon was much quieter and I liked that aspect of it. I also wonder whether the Polaroid won't have problems with dust getting inside it as the film chamber (correct term?) is always open. Also, I think I'm going to miss Digital ICE though I haven't really tried the Polaroid's automatic dust removal yet. Finally, while the Insight software doesn't crash, it does lock up the PC pretty well even though Task Manager doesn't report ridiculous CPU or memory usage. This seems strange since it's a dual processor machine.

My questions are these:

- Does anyone know how well the SS120 will run hooked to SCSI vs. Firewire? I have a Firewire card in the machine now but it's not mine and I have to give it back. I do have an appropriate SCSI port so I guess I can just test this on my own.

- Can anyone recommend a good book on Photoshop and/or scanning? I need to learn quite a bit about histograms, levels, curves, etc.

- I seem to be getting some fine, faint banding on prints from my Epson 1270. Any ideas?

- Does anyone have any paper recommendations for the 1270?

- Finally, does anyone know of any good info on scanning BW negs?

Thanks and if anyone has any SS120 questions, feel free to email me and I'll try to answer them.

Paul Wilson

Re: filmscanners: Profiling a Scanner -- Was Polaroid SprintScan120

2001-07-10 Thread Ian Lyons




 My strong suspicion is that the profiling of ICC Scan will be better than
 that of Silverfast,

It is and so is CompassProfile Scanner and ColorSynergy, etc. with their
ability to create 16bit precision profiles and pick your own tone
compression technique (not sure about ICCScan). I crated profiles for the
SS4000 and, Nikon LS30 and LS2000 using CompassProfile. I created a new
SS120 profile earlier today using ColorSynery and very nice it is too.
However, all these packages cost $$ and remember IT8 was rolled into the
SilverFast bundle. You could do without it. In fact you could do without
SilverFast and use Insight, but my bets are you'd get real cheesed off with
some of Insights quirks.


 t's a one trick piece of software -- it only profiles scanners.
 It's up to date, and engineered (I think) by the same folks who designed
 some of the Gregtag software (or from another big color profilnig company, I
 can't remember which one).  It should do it's one trick very well, and user
 reports seem to confirm that it does.


Dan and Franz from ColorBlind fame and all their products are real cool and
quite reasonably priced. I did a review on ICC-DCam for profiling digicams
and it's very good, although slightly more limited in tweakability than the
more expensive packages


Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com

Re: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question

2001-07-10 Thread geoff murray

Hi Stan,
I am using Vuesacn 7.1.5 with an Athlon 1Ghz and 512mb Ram. Opens in
less than 2 seconds and closes instantly .

Geoff

- Original Message -
From: Stan Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question

 Many thanks to those of you who answered my questions about white pixel
 clipping.

 One more VueScan/SprintScan4000 question;

 The last two versions of VueScan are loading extremely slowly and also
 closing down slowly. It's taking about 20-30 seconds from clicking the
icon
 to having the initial VueScan screen appear. It takes the program around
15
 seconds to close down now.

 I haven't changed my hardware configuration and Polaroid's Insight
scanning
 software loads and exits normally.

 Anyone else notice this?

 Stan Schwartz

 www.tallgrassimages.com

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 3 - Digital ICE

2001-07-10 Thread Vladislav Jurco


With clean film, ICE shouldn't have anything to do.

Regards

Tony Sleep


Tony there IS a difference - less apparent grain and slightly less contrast
at highest picture frequencies (app. 60 lp/mm). Whole picture is affected.

Vlad



---
Odchozí  zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.256 / Virová báze: 129 - datum vydání: 31.5.2001

Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02

2001-07-10 Thread Terry Carroll


I use Photoshop, but only because I bought it (student edition) before
Photoshop Elements came out.  If I were starting now, I'd use Photoshop
Elements.  I think the additional features that I'm aware of in the full
Photoshop system (color space managementm etc.) are more useful for a
professional working for a print publication than my hobby use.

Paintshop Pro is very good for the money, and can even do some things that
are very difficult in Photoshop, but after using Photoshop for a while, I
think it's generally more powerful; and I think the price advantage is
gone or nearly gone with the inroduction of Photosop Elements.

Photoshop LE: I can't recall exactly what I found lacking in this, but I
do recall that looking at the features, it wasn't good enough for me.  I
think Elements is a much better low-entry offering than LE was.


-- 
Terry Carroll   |  Denied.
Santa Clara, CA |  Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001)
Modell delendus est |

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: focus problems with LS2000


David wrote:
With Vuescan I can do everything except get a sharp (focused) output 
when using the SF200.

Try changing the focus option in Vuescan to Always instead of auto or
preview.  Do NOT do this if you're doing multiple passes - on my LS30 this
results in a different focus for each pass and fuzzes the result.  On the
LS2000 this may not happen as the multiscanning is single pass.

Rob


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

filmscanners: LS 1000 Windows 2000?

2001-07-10 Thread Paul Hillier


Hi All

I haven't been on this list for a long time, so I hope this question
hasn't been asked recently.

I am trying to set up a Nikon LS-1000 slide scanner with Windows 2000,
is this possible?

Thanks Paul

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: CD from Scanner


Burt wrote:
 What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying
 from the scanner and that my best procedure with the Adaptec
 software was to copy to the hard drive and then copy to the
 CD.  It was also suggested that I might acquire another CD
 burner software that would do a better job.  

Eek!  I would *never* try scanning directly to a CDR.  That is bound to
result in buffer underruns and coasters.  A CDR is not a hard drive or a
floppy disk.  Packet software makes it *look* like one, but it isn't!

 It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid
 having to fill up the hard drive with images.

Yup, but it's not such a bad idea to check the image first before you burn
it to a write once medium.

Having said that, if you're using a TWAIN interface to scan into Photoshop
or some similar program, you've created a temp file on the hard drive. 
If you then save from Photoshop to the CDR it ought to work.  I don't have
packet writing software, so I can't try this.  On principle I would scan
a set of files until I had enough to put on a CDR (like 650MB) then burn
them all at once.  You won't get 650MB on a packet CDR because the formatting
takes up space.

 I realize that I could erase the image, but the procedure of
 copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image on the
 HD seems very cumbersome.

Not really, especially if you're using drag and drop to do it.  If you highlight
a number of files, drag and drop them on the burner icon, you can then delete
them using the same selection once they've been written.  Personally I don't
use packet CDs anyway.

 The tech also suggested a ZIP drive.  I thought the purpose
 of the CD was to avoid having to get a ZIP drive.

A ZIP drive won't hold many scans, depending on what resolution
you're using.  The files also won't be readable on someone else's
computer unless they have the same model ZIP drive.  CDR is much
more universal.

Rob


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

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Profiling a Scanner -- Was Polaroid SprintScan 120


Ian wrote:
It is and so is CompassProfile Scanner and ColorSynergy, etc.
[snip]
 Dan and Franz from ColorBlind fame and all their products are
 real cool and quite reasonably priced.

Ian, do you have some URLs for these products?

Rob


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

RE: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.

The Polaroid 35 mm slide holder, while basic, works perfectly well in my
experience.

-Original Message-
From: Wilson, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:57 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.

   I haven't used the Polaroid's mounted 35mm slide holder yet though it
doesn't seem quite as good as the Nikon's.  This one is also plastic vs.
cast metal for the MF and 35mm strip holders.  Why is this? 

The best Photoshop book I've used is Blatner and Fraser's Photoshop __ (fill
in the number of your version; I've read Photoshop 4 and 5, I think
Photoshop 6 is out now).  It's more conceptual that technique oriented.  A
good place to pick up techniques is with a subscription to PEI Magazine.

 - Can anyone recommend a good book on Photoshop and/or scanning?  I need
to learn quite a bit about histograms, levels, curves, etc. 

I too wonder whether the Polaroid may have problems with dust getting insde.
I strongly suspect that with either the SS120 or Nikon 8000ED scan quality
may decrease over time as more dust gets inside the machine.  You should
definitely put a dust cover over the machine whenever it's not in use.  I
will probably send mine to a Polaroid service center once a year to have it
cleaned as a precautionary measure -- Polaroid makes this service available
I assume?

 I also wonder whether the Polaroid won't have problems with dust getting
inside it as the film chamber (correct term?) is always open.

The other question you haven't asked is about warm up time.  Should one let
the scanner warm up for a certain amount of time before scanning to get
maximum quality?  (I know on my flatbed recommended warm up time was 10-15
minutes.)  The Polaroid SS 120 lamp shuts off automatically after 30 minutes
of non-use.  How does this affect scan quality?  Also, I suppose to maximize
scan quality we should plan on replacing the lamps every 1 year or so? 

 Paul Wilson

Re: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.


Paul, thanks for (yet another) LS-120 review.

A couple of comments if I may.

Your complaint regarding NikonScan 3.1 being buggy 
is surprising to me.  I had some initial problems 
getting NS installed, but it has not been remotely 
buggy since then.  The installation issues turned 
out to be due to device conflicts.

Which leads me to suspect that a good number of 
reported bugs in NS are in fact due to device 
conflicts.  This info is of no use to you at the 
moment, but others reading this may care.

Surprising that you say the LS-120 is loud.  My 
8000 ED is by far the noisiest film scanner I've 
owned.  Hard to imagine the LS-120 being louder.
Do you wear ear protection ? g.


Re:  Photoshop Books:

* Photoshop Artistry, by Haynes and Crumpler.
* Real World Photoshop (5 or 6) by Blatner and Fraser
* Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis



rafe b.

filmscanners: VueScan: How do it know?

2001-07-10 Thread Preston Earle


I recently bought a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II to scan the highlights of 40
years of 35mm slides and negatives.  I've been pleased with the purchase,
considering the price.  I've been scanning mostly at 1410ppi to yield approx
1800x1200 scans that can be printed as 4x6 prints, but I plan to use most
of the images for screen display as 1024x768 JPEG's.  I'm using WindowsME's
My Pictures Screen Saver to display random slide shows, and I've used
IrfanView for ordered presentations on my kitchen computer.

I've found the Minolta software to be easy to understand for someone who
knows a little about Photoshop. However, it is awfully slow, taking about 5
minutes per image.  Also, I'm not thrilled with the quality of scans,
particularly from my less-than-perfect negatives.  It seems to do a better
job with transparancies.  I have a number of rolls of film that I had
transparancies made from Kodacolor negatives.  The transparancies were
superior to the prints from negatives, and they scanned much better than the
negatives.

So now to the question:  To see if there is better software available, I
downloaded VueScan 7.1.4, but I can't understand how to get started with it.
I've managed to make three scans, but I don't know how I got it to work with
scanner.  Upon opening, it just seems to sit there.  None of the buttons
(Preview, Scan, etc.) do anything.  I can't get it to recognize the scanner.
I feel like the (substitute your favorite sterotype) who bought the
chainsaw. (What's that noise?)  The VueScan documentation, such as it is,
hasn't helped.  Is there something obvious that I've missed?  Should the
VueScan software be loaded as a Photoshop plug-in?  Is the trial version
crippled in some way such that I really need to pony up the $40 to see how
the program really works?

I've been lurking for a couple of weeks and understand there is a lot of
support for VueScan on this list.  I hope someone can help me get started
with it.

Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Another crazy southerner who is all-Nikon in his camera equipment but didn't
know it was a cultural thing.

RE: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question

2001-07-10 Thread Stan Schwartz


Once the program loads, the opening screen looks normal and the SS4000 shows
up. In the past, I have seen the program delay opening when it can't find
the scanner. However, that isn't the problem here.

Now I have to make the decision whether to spend a bunch of time tinkering
to figure out why loading is slow--or just live with it for now.

Stan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan and SS4000--second question


The last two versions of VueScan are loading extremely slowly and also
closing down slowly. It's taking about 20-30 seconds from clicking the icon
to having the initial VueScan screen appear. It takes the program around 15
seconds to close down now.

This happened once to me with a different model SCSI-attached scanner.
Problem was somehow in OS or HW communication with the scanner.  When
Viescan does finish loading does it show the SS4000 scanner in the scan-from
menu in the device tab window or does it show (scan from) disk?  Does the
problem not occur if you load an earlier Vuescan version?

--
Bob Shomler
http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: LS 1000 Windows 2000?


Paul wrote:
I am trying to set up a Nikon LS-1000 slide scanner with Windows 2000,
is this possible?

I haven't tried it, but you'll probably have to install ASPI SCSI drivers
for your SCSI card.

Rob


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

Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0

2001-07-10 Thread Dave King


Or they all are.  Those of us who make a living from photography take
the lists seriously.  I've learned most of what I know about digital
photography from lists such as this, and like Rafe, want to see on
topic and relevant discussion.

Dave

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0




 Dave King wrote:
 
  Rafe, you are right on the money.
 
  Dave


 Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-)

 Art

RE: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.


At 05:37 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Slavitt, Howard wrote:

I too wonder whether the Polaroid may have problems with dust getting insde.
I strongly suspect that with either the SS120 or Nikon 8000ED scan quality
may decrease over time as more dust gets inside the machine.  You should
definitely put a dust cover over the machine whenever it's not in use.


Surprisingly, in 2 years time, this hasn't been an issue 
for me on my SprintScan Plus.  If you look at the construction 
(of that model, anyway) it turns out the optics are embedded 
in a long narrow tube, in between the film carrier and the 
CCD sensor.  I guess dust has a hard time getting onto the 
front side of the lens, and no way, really, to get at the 
back side of the lens.

FWIW, the 8000 ED has two separate doors covering the film 
carrier slot.  There's that thin hinged door which flops up 
when the film carrier's inserted.  It also turns out (geez - 
I had to read the manual to find this out g) that that 
decorative black panel is also a secondary cover for the 
film carrier slot.  Most photos of the 8000 show this panel 
pushed down to reveal the film carrier slot.  When the 
scanner's not in use, this panel slides up to cover the slot.

Jeez, it's hard writing this without sounding like Masters 
and Johnson g.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120

2001-07-10 Thread Dave King


First Howard, congratulations on the new scanner.

 I'm new to this list.  I just purchased a Polaroid Sprintscan 120
with the
 Silverfast software.  I have some initial impressions to share and
some
 questions.  First, overall the scan quality is, IMHO, excellent and
the
 scanner is very fast.  For medium format I am scanning 6 cm x 9 cm
slides
 (mostly Velvia).  I am scanning into 48 bit raw files and then
exporting to
 Photoshop.  At 4000 dpi, this gives me files of about 660 Megabytes
in 10
 minutes!  If I scan at 1/2 maximum resolution, 2000 dpi, the scan
time drops
 to only 2 minutes or less for 6 cm x 9 cm slides, and I get an
excellent 160
 MB 48 bit file, which is 80 MB after reduced to 24 bit color.
Sharpness on
 the scans is excellent.  35 mm scans are also very nice; 4000 dpi in
48 bit
 mode in about 2 minutes.

I would be shooting more negative film with CCD scanners.  With good
scanning and Photoshop techniques you should be able to get the best
end result with negatives.

 Here are my questions/problems with the scanner that maybe someone
can help
 me with:

  1.  Did I make a mistake spending $300 extra for the Silverfast
software?
 The main reason I purchased the software was for the color
calibration
 module and IT8 slide, and because I'd heard so many great things
about
 Silverfast.  However, I find that, while the color calibration is
very good,
 it has some shortcomings, depending on the particular slide, with
the
 yellows and magentas; sometimes the yellows are overemphasized and
the
 magentas underemphasized, or vice versa, as compared to the original
viewed
 on a light table (BTW for those who have never worked with a custom
ICC
 profile for a scanner before, these shortcomings are quite minor,
nothing
 compared to color shifts you see without a custom-profiled scanner,
but I'm
 a perfectionist when it comes to color; fyi, I have a fully
calibrated
 workflow on a Mac G4 using Optical and a DTP92 to calibrate my
monitor, so
 the problem is not elsewhere in my workflow).  I am making raw 48
bit scans
 and gamma correcting them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast
software, and
 then exporting them to Photoshop 6 (depending on the image I am
doing the 48
 bit editing in either Photoshop or Silverfast HDR).  Another problem
I am
 noticing with my raw, profiled scans is that the blackest blacks and
whitest
 whites are clipped in the raw 48 bit, profile-corrected, scan.  My
darkest
 shadow areas never get below 20 on the Photoshop histogram and the
whitest
 highlighs never above 235.  I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial
religiously in
 calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest
blacks and
 brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say
1.8
 gamma)?  Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme
values?  I
 can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop
48 bit
 editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command),
but then
 this has other effects as well. . . .

IMO, no, you did not waste money on Silverfast and the calibration
option.  The sort of discrepencies in color you're seeing may be
attributed to any link in the chain.  You don't know that it's not
your monitor just because it's calibrated.  As the chain gets better,
smaller inaccuracies become more apparent.  That doesn't mean the
newest link in your imaging chain is the cause of them.  Your shadows
and highlights don't sound clipped to me if they're at 20 and 235.
Clipped would be values running off the histogram at 0 and 255.  It
sounds like the software is giving you slightly soft scans, which is
ideal for final correction in PS.

 Back to my question about whether the Silverfast software bundle is
worth
 the extra $300, other than IT8 calibration, what does Silverfast off
that
 you can't just do in 48 bit mode in Photoshop 6.0?  What's the
advantage of
 learning an entirely new interface?  Am I missing something?
Moreover,
 Photoshop has excellent masking tools, which Silverfast does not
(while not
 available in 48 bit mode, you can save a duplicate of the file to 24
bit
 mode, mask in 24 bit mode, and then, reopening the 48 bit file, use
the
 masks created in the 24 bit mode on the 48 bit file).  To be fair,
 Silverfast's automatic correction tool with manual override is a
nice
 feature, but is it worth $300?

Personally, I only want a soft, fairly color correct hi bit scan to
import into PS for exact final correction.  IMO the main feature of
Silversoft is accurate calibration of the scanner.  That is easily
worth $300.

 2.  With one 6cm x 9 cm slides I've scanned (out of about 8 or 9
images
 scanned), there is noticeable softness introduced by the bowing of
the film
 because the film carrier does not hold it perfectly flat.  (The
original
 does not have this softness.)  Are there any tricks that people have
come up
 with to reduce this bowing?

Look at the mounted film under a point source desk lamp (such as the
Solux Task Lamp) before loading into

RE: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.

2001-07-10 Thread Wilson, Paul

Title: RE: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.





Hi Rafe,


It was definitely buggy on my system. Actually, when it worked it worked well. When was the problem. It would often crash for no apparent reason. Also, it often had problems recognizing that there was a film holder in the scanner and the scanner would only accept a film holder if Nikon Scan were open. I suppose the last one might not be a bug but I don't see the point if it's a feature. 

My system was built by me but I used quality components (Asus dual PIII motherboard, Adaptec Ultra-160 SCSI card, IBM 80MB/sec hard drives and an Asus video card.) and it has been stable for months.

As for the noise, it's quiet when it's not doing anything. The only noise is a faint one from the fan. When it's turned on or actually scanning though it can be quite loud. It might not truly be any louder than the Nikon (though I think it is) but it's higher pitched.

BTW, you mentioned you live near Boston. I live in Chelmsford so we could do some comparisons. 


-Original Message-
From: rafeb
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 7/10/01 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS120 first impressions and a few questions.


Paul, thanks for (yet another) LS-120 review.


A couple of comments if I may.


Your complaint regarding NikonScan 3.1 being buggy 
is surprising to me. I had some initial problems 
getting NS installed, but it has not been remotely 
buggy since then. The installation issues turned 
out to be due to device conflicts.


Which leads me to suspect that a good number of 
reported bugs in NS are in fact due to device 
conflicts. This info is of no use to you at the 
moment, but others reading this may care.


Surprising that you say the LS-120 is loud. My 
8000 ED is by far the noisiest film scanner I've 
owned. Hard to imagine the LS-120 being louder.
Do you wear ear protection ? g.



Re: Photoshop Books:


* Photoshop Artistry, by Haynes and Crumpler.
* Real World Photoshop (5 or 6) by Blatner and Fraser
* Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis




rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED

2001-07-10 Thread Julian Robinson


Unfortunately Sir is broke and has no money.  He was only enthusiastically 
supporting the notion of *factual* comparative information of reasonable 
validity as a means of choosing between scanners.  As opposed to trying to 
do it based on opinion, unverifiable comparisons and manufacturer's claims. 
(It was by the way the search for good quality data that explains how he 
came to find this list in the first place after being drawn to your reviews).

I do hope to be in a position to buy a scanner sometime in the next year or 
so and it is for this that I enthusiastically devour good comparative info.

While I agree with many comments that the 8000 and 120 are obviously very 
similar in what can be achieved with each, I believe there are probably a 
few characteristics that might make you choose one over the other, 
specifically - ultimate resolution, focus-ability over the whole film, 
grain visibility, shadow detail...and dust/scratch visibility and 
correction.  But maybe even these are into diminishing returns already..

Julian

PS as well as the software you'd need the same images at each scanner 
location no?

At 11:34 10/07/01, you wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:13:54 +1000  Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

   - when you see something in one and can directly try it on the
  other,or tweek one to match the other.

What's needed is a PC Anywhere/VNC/Carbon Copy remote control of a range
of scanners. Then you could do this from anywhere.

How much would Sir wish to pay for such a service? :)

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio  exhibit; + film scanner
info  comparisons


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!

2001-07-10 Thread Julian Robinson


The single best piece of test gear I have discovered for this kind of 
intermittent problem is the bump, tap and wiggle.  If it were mine, I'd 
wait till the light goes out, then starting from the power  into the UPS 
bang every component or wiggle the flexible ones.

Unfortunately your most likely candidate seems to be the scanner itself, 
and you might understadable be not so keen on bashing it too hard.

Just the same this is not said in jest - banging is often the fastest way 
to find the source of the problem.

A slightly more sophisticated version of this is to spray suspect areas 
with freezing spray, but this means you have to be inside the box.

Julian

At 04:05 10/07/01, you wrote:
Check the house for Gremlins

Maris

- Original Message -
From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Wierd Problem with my SS120!


| Some further details..  The scanner is contected to a UPS and so power
| related problems should not be an issue.
| The cords arer all snugly and completely seated.
|
| It only happened once yesterday.
|
|
| Lawrence i have the worst luck Smith
|
|


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120


At 10:41 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:

Enjoy.  This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film
scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good
enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format
size.


I'm not sure I agree there, Dave.

The Leafscan 45 and the Imacons (both CCD) have 
been around for a while.

The two new models (from Polaroid and Nikon) are 
poised, IMHO, somewhere between these two very 
worthy (but dated) standards.

On 35 mm, the Leaf 35 and 45 can probably 
still beat either the Polaroid or Nikon.
Er, that is, if you have an hour or so to wait 
(on the Leaf.)

What *is* quite significant is the price that 
these new models are being offered at -- 
roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the Leaf's original 
price, or Imacon's current retail price.


rafe b.

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan: How do it know?