Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
B.Rumary wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit opening between the shutter curtains. I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M. It _is_ related to the synch speed, because electronic flash is so fast that it needs the entire image area exposed when the flash goes off. If the camera speed is set above the synch speed, then the moving slit effect means that only that portion of the film exposed by the slit at the moment of flash will get the benefits of the flash. The flash-lighted area will then be correctly exposed, while the non-lit area will be heavily under-exposed. Note this only applies to electronic flash guns, which give very short duration flashes - typically 1/30,000 sec. The old fashioned flash bulbs burn much more slowly and give light for long enough for the slit to do it's full run across the film. I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
ouch, that's about 7x more than i want to pay :) Are you looking to pay $80? They are coming down in price quite a bit from what I can tell (used that is). doesn't anyone make a cheap inaccurate transparency scanner? letter is okay for me, i just want to be able to fit 5 frames of 35mm at a time... 5 frames, as in frames 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, or 5 strips? If you mean 5 frames, hell, get a 1640SU.
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Austin Franklin wrote: As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit opening between the shutter curtains. I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M. As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings, I do not intend to respond directly either publicly or privately to his postings in the future. I bring this to the attention of the other members so that you understand that my silence to Austin's challenges is not necessarily because I am unable to defend my position on either technical or other merits, but because I simply have decided his challenges are not worth my time to pursue. Further, the issue he has brought up to question above was an aside and tangential to the main point I was making in my post, that of the possibility of a design using one or more moving tri-line CCD arrays, across an aperture, if CCDs sampling response time was improved. However, since the question of why focal plane shutters have limited flash synch speeds might be of further interest to others, I provide the following expanded information for their edification. Austin, have a ball, nitpick at it as much as you like. Most camera mounted electronic flashes typically operate at between 1/1000th and 1/10-50,000 of a second, in fact most flashes operate in that range, or above, which is well above flash synch speeds on focal plane shutter cameras. The sequence of events is the shutter curtain opens fully, then sometime during the fully open shutter period, usually very nearly after the first shutter curtain is fully open, the flash goes off. With some flash systems you can adjust the flash to go off just before the second curtain starts closing, which can be useful for some effects involving movement. The limitation in flash synch speed is that the shutter opening has to be complete when the flash goes off, since the flash lighting only lasts a small fraction of the total exposure time. This is also why ghosting occurs when there is ambient light. In most cameras, including vertical shutters, once you get above the flash synch speed, there is either not enough time, or no time that the shutter curtain is fully open before the second shutter is beginning to follow. That is also why faster shutters can have faster flash synch speeds because they can have more open time before the shutter has to begin travel to close. As the shutter speed is increased, the opening between the first shutter curtain and the second decreases. So if a camera has a flash synch of 1/250 sec. and you try to use 1/500 sec, you will find that the flash will have gone off as the first curtain has fully opened, but by that time the second curtain will have already begun its travel, and you will get part of the frame missing flash lighting. There is probably one speed, or perhaps even two, above the flash synch speed where the shutter might actually be open fully, but it is too short a time to allow for the electronic flash to go off and finish its flash duration before the second curtain starts its movement. So, factually it might be possible that the shutter remains open fully on one or more further speeds beyond maximum flash synch, but not long enough to accomplish the necessary steps to complete a flash lighting before the second curtain begins its travel. I can think of no advantage for a camera to have a slower maximum flash synch speed offered than the shutter is capable of providing, so I can't see why any manufacturer would do so unless they manufactured a camera which had unreliable shutter travel. Art
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings, I do not intend to respond directly either publicly or privately to his postings in the future. I bring this to the attention of the other members so that you understand that my silence to Austin's challenges is not necessarily because I am unable to defend my position on either technical or other merits, but because I simply have decided his challenges are not worth my time to pursue. Further, the issues he has brought up to question below were asides and tangential to the main points I was making in my post which were concerning the discussion comparing color dye clouds and capture of images digitally, not black and white developing, and my principle point was that grain was randomly distributed throughout the film emulsion and no process allowed for dye clouds to be moved or lined up within the emulsion during processing, and therefore there was also a built in error factor in grain/dye clouds as there is in digital imagine with its fixed pixels. As I also explained, the order of magnitude of error related to the size and density of grain versus pixels, and as pixels were made smaller and packed more densely, this error factor would lessen. Art Austin Franklin wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location and shape and are not relocated by picture content. What about development? Also, some developing techniques can somewhat alter the shape or size of the dye clouds... Somewhat? However, most of this type of thing is done in custom film development of black and white film, You can alter the grain of BW film by at least two to four times simply by developer choice, dilution, temperature and technique. It certainly isn't custom, most anyone who uses BW has their favorite developer/dilution/temperature and technique that suits their needs/style/experimentation. It is VERY critical when talking about film grain to discuss development AND even exposure (as you mentioned push/pull too)...since the same film can give such drastically different results...and more so even if you are using Zone system compensation development. because the need to control so many other variables within color film development doesn't allow for much playing around. Most color film processing is fairly uniform in its method... Not quite true...see below... This is why almost all color film is souped in one of two basic color chemistry types (C-41 or E-6). There are different E-6 and C-41 processes. Different chemical AND entirely different developments, as well as techniques. E6 can be 3 bath or 6 bath, and C-41 can be 2 bath or 3 bath. All of this plays a SIGNIFICANT role on the shape and size of the dye clouds. It can be far more significant than you made it out to be. However, I know of no color development technique that is capable of moving film grain or dye clouds within the emulsion so that they can line up the grain as a result of the image content. If you do, I'd like to here about it. I don't believe anyone ever suggested that at all... .
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
SKID Photography wrote: I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC My Vivitar 285 flash indicates specifications of 1/1000th to 1/30,000 sec, but it is what, 20 years old? I couldn't find the specs of my much newer Nikon speedlite, but I think it has an even faster minimum speed. Art
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous 200 $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Mark, thanks for your report, very useful for me (I shoot negatives, so the only flaw you reported doesn't worry me much). If I may suggest something, if and when you have time, is that you check whether film defects are enhanced in the scans (not using FARE, I mean, just to see if the infrared cleaning is as badly needed as with the Nikons), and maybe try a couple of BW negatives as well. Thanks in advance, Alessandro Pardi -Original Message- From: Mark T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: mercoledì 31 ottobre 2001 15.28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments.. huge snip
RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394
It's XP Home and XP Pro. Your statement is wrong. Firewire is supported in any version of XP. Home and Pro are the same operating system. Home just lacks some optional features of Pro. Absolutely right. For the full set of differences, see: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.asp
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
In a message dated 10/30/2001 8:17:04 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With the brightness add back does the gamma work the same as version 7.1.25 where it worked by a multiplier with gamma and brightness or are gamma and brightness now two distinct operations. VueScan just multiplies the gamma and brightness numbers together and uses this internally as the exponent to the power function. It's always worked this way, but hopefully having the two options back in the user interface will reduce the number of e-mails I get about this. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
The areas I am mostly interested in, in rough order of importance, are: - dynamic range (I have some awkward shadowy Provias Kchromes to throw at it, and I am a chronic underexposer..:-) - overall sharpness - edge to edge sharpness (I got lots of 'bent' Kchromes that I have no desire to demount.) - colour accuracy (mainly on slides) - freedom from lens defects (flare, etc) - ease of use and my perception of how the unit 'feels' (ie will it last..?) - ease of batch scanning - efficiency of the FARE dust and scratch removal I'll report back soon.. mt mt Have you noticed the latest version (7.1.26) of Vuescan will scan panoramas with the FS4000. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ /
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
In a message dated 10/31/2001 10:29:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have you noticed the latest version (7.1.26) of Vuescan will scan panoramas with the FS4000. No, not really. It still only scans a 36mm maximum length. However, the new version can position the start of this 36mm piece of film at an arbitrary starting position in VueScan 7.1.26. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Mark, I would appreciate your work on that issue. In case you only would like to share your opinion off-list, please don't forget me... :-) Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark T. Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments.. But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US revealed that: - It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and does *really* nice work on negatives - FARE is quite effective, and though I have not used ICE/dICE, it appears to give very acceptable results - It has what appears to be an impressive dynamic range, but... :-( - the catch..? - It suffers from noise, or at least this sample did... In dark areas of slides a lot of that dynamic range is marred by noise. Admittedly it is 'nice' noise (?), ie it's very fine, very even, and not streaky, but it means that for a person like me who uses transparencies mostly, and has a bad habit of underexposing them, this isn't the 4000 dpi scanner for me. (And no, I don't think this noise is grain or grain aliasing - I know what that stuff looks like :-), and the slides were K25's..) I currently have an Acer 2720 (one from a good batch!), and it is definitely better in the 'shadowy realms' . Not because it sees more shadow detail - the Canon beats the Acer by a very small margin here, BUT if you wind the brightness/gamma up, the Acer's shadows stay smooth well beyond the point at which the Canon goes *quite* noisy... Note that we *are* talking fairly deep shadows here, so for well-exposed images I am sure you would be very happy with the results - but for my style of photography, I need that dark stuff! Ah well.. On negatives however, it looked very nice, and produced superb colours, esp from Reala, without even touching the settings.. I didn't have time to give it a good workout on overexposed negatives to see if the noise showed up much there. I'll post a fuller report soon, and if anyone wants samples I'll stick a couple of snippets on the web somewhere.. mt Art wrote: I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time.. snip
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments.. But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US revealed that: - It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and does *really* nice work on negatives - FARE is quite effective, and though I have not used ICE/dICE, it appears to give very acceptable results - It has what appears to be an impressive dynamic range, but... :-( - the catch..? - It suffers from noise, or at least this sample did... My FS2710 suffers from some noise, but Vuescan's multiscanning feature eliminates this entirely. Maybe this is to the detriment of shadow detail or sharpness. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ /
Re: filmscanners: Shutter sync speeds - WAS : Pixels per inch vs DPI
Austin Franklin wrote: I'm not convinced this is true with all FP cameras. It may very well be, and it does make sense. That's why I asked if anyone could provide a reference for this. I know one SLR that could synch at _all_ shutter speeds - this was the Olympus Pen F half-frame SLR, one of which I owned many moons ago. The shutter consisted of a half-circle of thin titanium sheet, pivoted at the centre of the circle. When you tripped the shutter, it rotated rapidly through 180 degrees, exposing the film. At the end of the exposure it rotated another 180, to cover the film again. The speed of rotation was so fast that the full area of the film was exposed for all shutter speeds, allowing synch up to the maximum speed, which I think was 1/500 sec. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that possibly some speed(s) above the max sync speed don't also have the film gate fully exposed for some time...that's the part I'm not convinced is a given. I don't agree. If that was the case then the camera manufacturer would set the synch speed higher, to benefit from this. Don't forget a higher maximum synch speed is a good selling point! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I've been using an SS4000 for over a year and have been pleased with the results. The fact that David Hemingway from Polaroid is an active participant on this list was a factor that was important to me in choosing Polaroid. David goes to great lengths to assure that SS4000 users get good support and that user input is taken into consideration in product development. To my knowledge no other scanner vendor has this sort of active representation. I've never heard or seen a peep from Canon, Nikon, or any other scanner vendor around here. In my experience you can't go wrong with the SS4000. -JimD At 02:46 PM 10/31/01 +0200, you wrote: Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous 200 $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
on 31/10/01 9:53 AM, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend hours on dust and scratches removing. Only if your negatives are filthy. I have the SS4000 and have scanned thousands of negs. I'm not a particularly clean worker but I only ever spend a couple of minutes spotting an image. The biggest exeption would be old slides or minilab processed C41 film which always has gunk on it. But my own stuff is great. JB
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Well, another opinion is always welcome. I realize that absence of dust removal system will cost me some time doing that manually, but anyway this choice cannot be considered as mistake. I've heard good opinions about FARE more then once, but apparently noticeable wider dynamic range would be more important for me due to shooting slides mostly and especially liking night and twilling scenery. Would the FS4000 match the SS4000 in this regard I wouldn't hesitate. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tom Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend hours on dust and scratches removing. Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
While it is true that the SS4000 does not have an IR channel it is not true that one will need to spend hours removing dust and scratches. I'm reasonably meticulous in 'spotting' my SS4000 scans. I seldom need to spend more than 10 minutes cleaning up my scans. I don't work in a clean room. I do keep my Proiva100 slides and Supra 400 negatives in 'print file' plastic sleeves in closed binders. -JimD At 06:53 AM 10/31/01 -0800, tom wrote: I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend hours on dust and scratches removing. Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
filmscanners: Re: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner report
At 12:57 AM +1030 11/1/01, Mark T. wrote: In dark areas of slides a lot of that dynamic range is marred by noise. Admittedly it is 'nice' noise (?), ie it's very fine, very even, and not streaky, but it means that for a person like me who uses transparencies mostly, and has a bad habit of underexposing them, this isn't the 4000 dpi scanner for me. Mark, have you tried the FS4000 with VueScan? Both Art Entlich and I noticed with the Minolta Scan Dual II that scans done with the native software were noisier in the shadows than the same slides scanned with VueScan. I was interested to see you liked negative scans on the FS4000. I've always had trouble getting good negative scans with the Minolta, so I await your fuller report with interest. Regards, Roger Smith
Re: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend hours on dust and scratches removing. Sorry, I disagree. I recently purchased a SS4000 and, trust me, getting such a great scanner for $450 WAS NOT A MISTAKE!!! I don't have a ton of old dusty film and I find that scanning new slides/negs is very easy. On average I spend about 10 seconds using a StaticMaster brush and maybe 2-3 minutes de-spotting in Photoshop. Which is nothing compared to the time I spend tweaking color, contrast etc.
filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of measurement? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
Ed writes ... ... VueScan just multiplies the gamma and brightness numbers together and uses this internally as the exponent to the power function. It's always worked this way, but hopefully having the two options back in the user interface will reduce the number of e-mails I get about this. When you originally removed this feature you put it into a context of having problems with it causing problems with color neutrality. (1) Did you fix this? and ... (2) How does Vuescan deal with color neutrality in general? That is, assuming you are working with the 3 RGB channels, the same brightness applied to all three should alter hue. If you apply the same contrast scaler to all three it should alter saturation (and hue). Similarly, apply the same gamma to all three channels should cause similar problems. Presumably, these operations could be independently be applied to all three channels if primarily applied(for example) to 'L' in Lab space, or 'L' in HSL space(?) You have never mentioned using intermediate color spaces ... without exposing Vuescan secrets, can you enlighten us? shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Arthur Entlich wrote: SKID Photography wrote: I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC My Vivitar 285 flash indicates specifications of 1/1000th to 1/30,000 sec, but it is what, 20 years old? I couldn't find the specs of my much newer Nikon speedlite, but I think it has an even faster minimum speed. Art Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th and 250th of a second. Will will see that there will be a significant exposrue difference between them. As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that manufacturers fudged them. Harvey Ferdscneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
Logarithmic density ratio value (you asked...). 3.2 is 10 to the 3.2 power or a density ratio of 1585:1. I can explain in detail if you like. What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of measurement? Ken Durling
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Further, the issues he has brought up to question below were asides and tangential to the main points I was making in my post which were concerning the discussion comparing color dye clouds and capture of images digitally, not black and white developing, I DID talk about color (see below), not BW exclusively. I find it funny that you ignore that fact. You really believe the size and shape of the film grain is tangential to the capture of images digitally? How do you arrive at that conclusion? and my principle point was that grain was randomly distributed throughout the film emulsion and no process allowed for dye clouds to be moved or lined up within the emulsion during processing, I do believe that is common knowledge, and I don't believe anyone disagreed with that. My correction to your statement was that development has a LOT to do with grain size. Austin Franklin wrote: Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location and shape and are not relocated by picture content. What about development? Also, some developing techniques can somewhat alter the shape or size of the dye clouds... Somewhat? However, most of this type of thing is done in custom film development of black and white film, You can alter the grain of BW film by at least two to four times simply by developer choice, dilution, temperature and technique. It certainly isn't custom, most anyone who uses BW has their favorite developer/dilution/temperature and technique that suits their needs/style/experimentation. It is VERY critical when talking about film grain to discuss development AND even exposure (as you mentioned push/pull too)...since the same film can give such drastically different results...and more so even if you are using Zone system compensation development. because the need to control so many other variables within color film development doesn't allow for much playing around. Most color film processing is fairly uniform in its method... Not quite true...see below... This is why almost all color film is souped in one of two basic color chemistry types (C-41 or E-6). There are different E-6 and C-41 processes. Different chemical AND entirely different developments, as well as techniques. E6 can be 3 bath or 6 bath, and C-41 can be 2 bath or 3 bath. All of this plays a SIGNIFICANT role on the shape and size of the dye clouds. It can be far more significant than you made it out to be. However, I know of no color development technique that is capable of moving film grain or dye clouds within the emulsion so that they can line up the grain as a result of the image content. If you do, I'd like to here about it. I don't believe anyone ever suggested that at all...
RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings, I either question you, or point out you're mistaken, missing something...whatever...and you call it nitpicking. This is entirely a cop-out, Arthur. If you were able to just stick to the technical merits of your arguments, there would be no problem. I do not intend to respond directly either publicly or privately to his postings in the future. I take that as positive, but be assured, I will respond to yours, if I feel the need to.
Re: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
Hi Ken, Wayne Fulton does a great job of answering your question. Go here: http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html Owen - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of measurement? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
SKID Photography wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: SKID Photography wrote: I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC My Vivitar 285 flash indicates specifications of 1/1000th to 1/30,000 sec, but it is what, 20 years old? I couldn't find the specs of my much newer Nikon speedlite, but I think it has an even faster minimum speed. Art Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th and 250th of a second. Will will see that there will be a significant exposrue difference between them. As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that manufacturers fudged them. Harvey Ferdscneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC I apologize to all for my above postI was writing it as I was having my morning coffee, I hit the wrong key, and it went out before it was finished. :-( It should have read: Try taking 3 different photos (Polaroids will do), at a 60th, 125th and 250th of a second. Will will see that there will be a significant exposure differences between them (due to long flash durations). In fact, usually, the less expensive flashes will have longer durations than the better ones. Which is to say that they get they power by flash duration rather than initial power. As far as 'specs' go, this would not be the first time that manufacturers have fudged them. Again, sorry about the mis-post. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets ouch, that's about 7x more than i want to pay :) Are you looking to pay $80? They are coming down in price quite a bit from what I can tell (used that is). the one i saw a price for was $2400 without the transparency cover which was another $400. i guess that was new. doesn't anyone make a cheap inaccurate transparency scanner? letter is okay for me, i just want to be able to fit 5 frames of 35mm at a time... 5 frames, as in frames 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, or 5 strips? If you mean 5 frames, hell, get a 1640SU. 5 frames in one strip. the 1640SU can't do that as the transparency unit is only large enough to fit a 3 frame strip. i'm keeping an eye out for tabloid scanners on ebay now. thanks much. ~j
RE: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of measurement? Two different answers: 1) The units are specs and it is a measurement of how far the manufacture is willing to push them. 2) There are no units for dynamic range - it the log base ten of the ratio between the lightest and darkest material that can be measured. These days it tends to be nothing more than the range of the A-D converter, with each bit adding 0.3 to the dynamic range. Thus a 12 bit system is said to have a dynamic range of 3.6. As far as I know there is no standard on how to decide what is the darkest material that a scanner can measure. As a test I placed a series of neutral density filters (no filter, ND 1, ND 2, ND 3, ND 4, and ND 5) in my Microtek 8700 scanner. I was clearly able to distinguish between the ND 4 and the ND5 filters, but only because each was a large uniform area that I could average over. The noise level was larger than the difference, but by looking at a large number of pixels I could tell the two patches apart. I had enough peculiarities in this test that I want to repeat it to see if something was wrong.
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
I don't think I understand the expoure lock function. That is, you've removed any ability to control the exposure, except to lock it(?) I was hoping you had added panoramic functionality in the following way: lock the exposure by (1) changing it over to manual and fixed. In addition you would modifify color controls tab by adding a lock color control. This would allow you to (1) determine exposure with a representative frame (... change to manual exposure ...), (2) get the color right with the representative frame ... and lock color calculations (which in effect disables every consideration except to apply the result to following frames). shAf :o)
filmscanners: Nikon 4000 vs 8000
Is there any difference between the Nikon 4000 and 8000 in scanning 35mm? DaleH
Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394
Mark, You have quoted a post which I missed. I looked at the site you listed but can see nothing listed for IEEE1394. Please advise where you saw that XP Home support this. Ian - Original Message - From: Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394 It's XP Home and XP Pro. Your statement is wrong. Firewire is supported in any version of XP. Home and Pro are the same operating system. Home just lacks some optional features of Pro. Absolutely right. For the full set of differences, see: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.asp
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
In a message dated 10/31/2001 2:54:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was hoping you had added panoramic functionality in the following way: lock the exposure by (1) changing it over to manual and fixed. In addition you would modifify color controls tab by adding a lock color control. This would allow you to (1) determine exposure with a representative frame (... change to manual exposure ...), (2) get the color right with the representative frame ... and lock color calculations (which in effect disables every consideration except to apply the result to following frames). Yes, this is how it works. You scan the first frame of the panorama, set Device|Lock exposure, then scan the rest of the frames of the panorama. I can't think of any way to make this simpler, but I'm open to suggestions. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
doesn't anyone make a cheap inaccurate transparency scanner? letter is okay for me, i just want to be able to fit 5 frames of 35mm at a time... 5 frames, as in frames 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, or 5 strips? If you mean 5 frames, hell, get a 1640SU. 5 frames in one strip. the 1640SU can't do that as the transparency unit is only large enough to fit a 3 frame strip. i'm keeping an eye out for tabloid scanners on ebay now. Exactly...that's why I ended up with a tabloid scanner...
Re: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
Thanks folks- excellent answers. Plus I have ordered and am waiting for a hard copy of Wayne Fulton's tips. For some reason I can stare at a screen for hours editing photos (or music) , but when it comes to reading words I fade in 10 minutes! Ken
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
5 frames in one strip. the 1640SU can't do that as the transparency unit is only large enough to fit a 3 frame strip. i'm keeping an eye out for tabloid scanners on ebay now. thanks much. ~j You'd be well served to get a scanner like Austin describes. I looked for a while then decided I was too cheap. I cut my 35mm rolls into 6 strip lengths, so when I'm not so cheap so as to squeeze that damn 37th frame out of the roll ;-) I can fit 6 strips of 6 exposures on my cheapo Umax Astra 1200 with transparency adapter (which allows up to 8x10 scans) IF I lay them directly on the glass without a printfile sleeve. IOW, laying the film directly on the glass with edges all snug up against each other, they fit thew 8x10 adapter. It works, but if I weren't so cheap I'd rather have the tabloid scanner and keep my negs in the print file pages. Just remember to factor the cost of the transparency adapter into your decision making equation. Todd PS, Of course, if you cut your negs into strips of 5 it's a different situation.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I have an Artixscan 4000 (similar to SS4000) which has scratches removing hardware, so I may confirm the penible many hours of retouching (even with a Wacom tablet). As I print up to A3+ and I tend towards sometimes too much perfectionism, I have already thought this as an inevitable step because I read many times that scratches removing software always softens the image. Now, the doubt came and I never saw other scanners nor I know in the world outdoors (in this and some other lists I feel like home :-) ) other persons working in digital. Usually, I am not pressed by time when I work. The scratches removing software has negligible side effects even in A3+ prints or my penible many hours of retouching are worth? TIA. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or | FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. | | I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice | but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend | hours | on dust and scratches removing. | | Tom | | | __ | Do You Yahoo!? | Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. | http://personals.yahoo.com | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
- Original Message - From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I've been using an SS4000 for over a year and have been pleased | with the results. The fact that David Hemingway from Polaroid | is an active participant on this list was a factor that was important | to me in choosing Polaroid. David goes to great lengths to assure | that SS4000 users get good support and that user input is taken | into consideration in product development. To my knowledge no other | scanner vendor has this sort of active representation. I've never | heard or seen a peep from Canon, Nikon, or any other scanner | vendor around here. In my experience you can't go wrong with | the SS4000. | -JimD By what I have read in this list, I cannot aggree more with Jim and I regret not to have choosed the SS4000 instead of my Microtek 4000 a few months ago, when I had a problem during warranty with mine. It has been terrible to solve. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Posterization Problem with Silverfast and SS120
Anyway, this was my first attempt at scanning thin negs with the SS120 and I was dispirited at the results. Perhaps there is a gain setting somewhere... Try OptionSpecial and deselect the Limit Gamma Slope checkbox if already ticked (it shouldn't be with the 120). The exposure control is also in the same dialog. Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com From: Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:37:59 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Posterization Problem with Silverfast and SS120 Here's a change from the endless bickering over technical details... I'm trying to scan some nightclub shots, I was forced to shoot Tri-X at 1600 and push. They are pretty soft, as the club was darker than I expected and I was getting shutter speeds around 1/4. Anyway, this was my first attempt at scanning thin negs with the SS120 and I was dispirited at the results. Perhaps there is a gain setting somewhere... What I got was quite a bit of posterization. It can be seen in this shot, particularly in the face and the cleavage (wait, don't look there!): http://www.spirer.com/tessg/piacere3.jpg Not great... I then tried scanning using Insight, and got significantly better results, although still not as good as my quickie darkroom contact sheet. The change is quite visible in the face and...well, other places: http://www.spirer.com/tessg/piacere3.jpg There's still problems with posterization, but it's far less. Any suggestions on how to fix this are welcome. (And thanks to David from Polaroid for helping me previously. Turned out to be a SCSI problem.) Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Harvey, Sorry for the stupid question, but have you done this test in an effectively dark room? Perhaps you're seeing ambient light begin to contribute to exposure? For ambient light not to have any effect on exposure it should be at least 5 stops below the working setting. I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. Dave - Original Message - From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI B.Rumary wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit opening between the shutter curtains. I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M. It _is_ related to the synch speed, because electronic flash is so fast that it needs the entire image area exposed when the flash goes off. If the camera speed is set above the synch speed, then the moving slit effect means that only that portion of the film exposed by the slit at the moment of flash will get the benefits of the flash. The flash-lighted area will then be correctly exposed, while the non-lit area will be heavily under-exposed. Note this only applies to electronic flash guns, which give very short duration flashes - typically 1/30,000 sec. The old fashioned flash bulbs burn much more slowly and give light for long enough for the slit to do it's full run across the film. I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Oh yes, we always check ambient to flash ratios when we shoot. We do tend to do a lot of mixing of lights in our celebrity portraiture, so I'm well aware of the 5 stop increment. On the other hand, we have been doing a lot of shooting (with studio strobes) at 1/500th of a second recently, and maybe my memory has been colored by the even greater loss of effective flash power with the extremely fast shutter speeds of late. But again, don't go by what the manufacturers spec, try it yourself and see. We are photographing 'The Chemical Brothers' this weekend for a magazine shoot, and if time permits, I will try to run a series of Polaroids, again, to double check my understanding. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID photography, NYC Dave King wrote: Harvey, Sorry for the stupid question, but have you done this test in an "effectively" dark room? Perhaps you're seeing ambient light begin to contribute to exposure? For ambient light not to have any effect on exposure it should be at least 5 stops below the working setting. I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. Dave - Original Message - From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI > "B.Rumary" wrote: > > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane > > > > film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the > > > > maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit > > > > opening between the shutter curtains. > > > > > > I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some > > > cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch > > > speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied > > > to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? > > > > > > That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of > > > my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M. > > > > > It _is_ related to the synch speed, because electronic flash is so fast that > > it needs the entire image area exposed when the flash goes off. If the camera > > speed is set above the synch speed, then the "moving slit" effect means that > > only that portion of the film exposed by the "slit" at the moment of flash > > will get the benefits of the flash. The "flash-lighted" area will then be > > correctly exposed, while the non-lit area will be heavily under-exposed. > > > > Note this only applies to electronic flash guns, which give very short > > duration flashes - typically 1/30,000 sec. The old fashioned flash bulbs > > "burn" much more slowly and give light for long enough for the "slit" to do > > it's full run across the film. > > I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience > that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic > flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. > > > Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne > partner, SKID photography, NYC > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. It takes some time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess different types of flashes have different timing (latency). Does anyone actually know what a typical flashes latency time is? I can check my Elinchroms to see what they say this time is supposed to be...as I have the service manuals for them, and they are pretty comprehensive...hopefully, they'll have something to say about it.
filmscanners: Canon FS4000 scanner 'review'
OK, here goes. (Long email follows, hit the Trash bin if you aren't interested in this scanner or my view of it!) Before I start, for those that suggested possible solutions to the noise by using Vuescan multi mode, the bad news is that the machine they set the scanner up on was a very weird looking creature with hot-swappable drives, Windows 2000, etc, and the !@#$% 3.5 drive wasn't working, so my copy of Vuescan had to sit there untried, damn. And the Canon is now back in the box, and I'm not buying it, so I doubt I will get another chance. Sorry.. Now, I'm waiting to see if the guy can get his 3.5 drive working so I can go and get a few cropped JPGs off it to show people what I tried..! Anyway, back to the scanner: - General Impressions Looks good! - quiet, has a 'well-engineered' sound. Small box (about half a small shoebox), but requires lots of space in front of the unit as it pokes the carriers outwards. Slide/film carriers look a bit flimsy, but were well-designed, very easy to load and would cope with thin or thick slide mounts. Unit has no eject button which is annoying - the software has to be running to eject the carrier. Dumb. - Software Hmm. Runs as Twain app from PS LE (bundled). It's OK, I guess, and includes histogram, curves etc, but the workflow didn't seem very smooth - I was continually flicking back and forth from the thumbnail view to the scan program and you couldn't adjust the program while viewing the thumbs - maybe I was just doing it wrong though.. Seemed to be no way to flick back to Photoshop to view previously scanned images without shutting down the scan app. Does an awful lot of stuff in memory, so 512K RAM at least required. No built in help file, and a message of 'FARE Failed. Error - address 00x00f900' doesn't immediately point to a solution (it means 'crop your image before trying to use FARE', I think - pretty obvious really! :-). Didn't try batch scanning, but I think I would be jumping straight over to Vuescan for that.. - Performance On well-exposed slides and negatives, the results were very impressive - (I wasn't using a test target, but some of my kchromes are pretty testing..). On negatives especially, the scanners first go at color balance seemed to be exceptionally good (admittedly I only tried Kodak Gold 100, Superia 100 and Reala 100). But when I stuck in an underexposed sunset (shot on kchrome 25), the catch appeared. Initially the scan looked excellent - it dragged out more shadow detail than I had seen from this slide before. But when I dragged the curve up a bit to look at the detail more closely, the noise was pretty obvious. If it had only been in the very deepest areas, I would have forgiven it, but it seems to pervade all deep shadow areas. The shadow definition I get out of my Acer 2720 is much more usable. I didn't have time to test this issue out on negatives, but I didn't notice it when I first ran the negs through, and if my experience with other scanners (not much!) is any guide it would be far less of a problem due to the lower density of negatives and the fact it will be in light areas. As I mentioned, the noise is very fine and not streaky, so it is not too objectionable, but there is a bit too much of it for my liking. And it is annoying because what appeared to be an excellent dynamic range was spoilt. Now bear in mind that this was a quick test, and there could be some issue like a bad profile that I was unaware of.. And Vuescan's multiscan modes may well solve the problem, but I couldn't try it. Perhaps Ed can comment on his experience? One other catch is that scans are indeed quite slow - even at low-resolution this scanner isn't a speed demon, so multi-scanning may be a bit painful. - Optics/Focus Sharp, no obvious flare or other lens aberrations that I could see. Coped well with a really bowed cardboard-mount slide I scanned. It began to lose focus only in the very outermost edges of the image, within about 0.5mm of the frame. Had no problems autofocussing on any images. There is a manual setting but I had no need or time to try it. - Dust/Scratch Removal (FARE) I had to limit my testing of this to a few quick scans at low resolution but I confess that I was impressed, even though I'm one of those who doesn't mind the time despotting.. It worked very well on dust, a little less well on scratches - it just left some of the scratches untouched. I have no experience with ICE, so I can't compare it, but the results looked good. I noticed no softening of edges, but at half resolution that is probably not a useful comment. From the samples I have seen on the web though, it looks as good as ICE/dICE. Like ICE, it doesn't work on kodachromes apparently. Now please note: - My experience with different scanners is limited, but I've certainly spent a long time getting to know mine! - Nevertheless I spend a lot of time on the web loking at
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Did you know that Polaroid is bankrupt? I don't know if that will affect any future warranty or not but the lesson you should take home is buy product from a bankrupt company at your own risk. On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Alex Zabrovsky wrote: Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous 200 $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Mark, Thanks for the review lite ;-) This is helpful info for all of us. Many scanners (probably due to software weaknesses, suffer in the neg scanning area, so the fact that Canon seems to have gotten that part right is good news. However, like you, deep shadows and some underexposed slides are my big issues. Having now looked over a number of scanners, I've gotten to realize how important for me those shadow areas are. I have some otherwise perfectly good images that are only one or 1.5 stops underexposed. Most all of the info appears to be in the slide if I project them with a brighter bulb setting. It is really disappointing when I go to scan these and find once the histogram or levels are adjusted, what was the shadows are a bunch of mud or green haze. Some of this, I've recently ascertained is software coding and not principally hardware, but either way, if you can't get the result, well... Both the HP S-20 Photosmart (and more so it's earlier brother) and the Minolta Dual II (at least the two I've had) suffer from this. The HP Photosmarts both simply could not bring the full shadows up keeping their exposure ranges. So there was a point where the information just all went dark, and isn't to be found, even with lightening the image. The Minolta has a lot more of that info there, but it is marred with noise. My two units varied widely in this area. But I have seen some scanners which seem to get right into those shadows and it is all there for the brightening. These are the ones for the slide shooter. The SS4000 is probably a good choice for that reason alone. Art Mark T. wrote: I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments.. But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US revealed that: - It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and does *really* nice work on negatives - FARE is quite effective, and though I have not used ICE/dICE, it appears to give very acceptable results - It has what appears to be an impressive dynamic range, but... :-( - the catch..? - It suffers from noise, or at least this sample did... In dark areas of slides a lot of that dynamic range is marred by noise. Admittedly it is 'nice' noise (?), ie it's very fine, very even, and not streaky, but it means that for a person like me who uses transparencies mostly, and has a bad habit of underexposing them, this isn't the 4000 dpi scanner for me. (And no, I don't think this noise is grain or grain aliasing - I know what that stuff looks like :-), and the slides were K25's..) I currently have an Acer 2720 (one from a good batch!), and it is definitely better in the 'shadowy realms' . Not because it sees more shadow detail - the Canon beats the Acer by a very small margin here, BUT if you wind the brightness/gamma up, the Acer's shadows stay smooth well beyond the point at which the Canon goes *quite* noisy... Note that we *are* talking fairly deep shadows here, so for well-exposed images I am sure you would be very happy with the results - but for my style of photography, I need that dark stuff! Ah well.. On negatives however, it looked very nice, and produced superb colours, esp from Reala, without even touching the settings.. I didn't have time to give it a good workout on overexposed negatives to see if the noise showed up much there. I'll post a fuller report soon, and if anyone wants samples I'll stick a couple of snippets on the web somewhere.. mt Art wrote: I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time.. snip .
Re: filmscanners: (OT) Pixels per inch vs DPI
For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've experienced the 250th of a second cut off of lighting output on our Polaroids. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Speedotron Black Line 2400 watt-second has a flash duration of 1/300th second, and shorter if you dial down the power. That's typical of studio power packs. That duration is measured between the 10 percent points. I'm not sure why you'd care about latency (I have to admit I haven't been following this off-topic discussion closely). Latency (the time lag it takes for the light out put to reach 10 percent of its peak) should be measured in microseconds rather than milliseconds and should rarely be of concern. In a message dated 10/31/2001 3:56:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of > 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter > speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. It takes "some" time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess different types of flashes have different timing (latency). Does anyone actually know what a typical flashes latency time is? I can check my Elinchroms to see what they say this time is supposed to be...as I have the service manuals for them, and they are pretty comprehensive...hopefully, they'll have something to say about it.
Re: filmscanners: (OT) Pixels per inch vs DPI
That could explain this. My 1000 w/s dynalites are probably shorter duration than the 2400 w/s packs. Love the Chemical Bros BTW. Fun stuff. Dave From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've experienced the 250th of a second cut off of lighting output on our Polaroids. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Speedotron Black Line 2400 watt-second has a flash duration of 1/300th second, and shorter if you dial down the power. That's typical of studio power packs. That duration is measured between the 10 percent points. I'm not sure why you'd care about latency (I have to admit I haven't been following this off-topic discussion closely). Latency (the time lag it takes for the light out put to reach 10 percent of its peak) should be measured in microseconds rather than milliseconds and should rarely be of concern. In a message dated 10/31/2001 3:56:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. It takes some time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess different types of flashes have different timing (latency). Does anyone actually know what a typical flashes latency time is? I can check my Elinchroms to see what they say this time is supposed to be...as I have the service manuals for them, and they are pretty comprehensive...hopefully, they'll have something to say about it.
