RE: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan

[Mark Otway]

>> P.S.  Please send messages in plain text.

Off-topic, but if you're using outlook, check this out:

 http://ntbugtraq.ntadvice.com/default.asp?sid=1&pid=55&did=38

It's an add-in which automatically converts all HTML mails to plain text
before they're viewed. It even works in the preview window on Outlook
XP!

:-)

Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Bernie Ess]

A professional photographer who lives on selling his b&w inkjet prints
(Piezo) and has a long scanning experience with the Polaroid 120 and others,
told me some days ago that he was able to do, from his new Epson 2450,
absolutely stunning prints from a 6x7 neg  up to 17x22 (inch) and still good
quality at 22x27. He also said that he had made prints out of 2450 scans
that equal those of a 5y old 25.000$ Linotype scanner up to 12x15.

He also sent me a fraction of a 2.400dpi scan of this 6x7 neg - I printed it
out at 360dpi on my 1160 - and I was so impressed that I bought the box the
next day - this was a 350$ investment and liberated me of the torture which
expensive MF scanner to buy while having to expect all those grain
enhancement and other problems. I will tell about my experiences soon.

Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints
at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with
his Nikon 4000 - I printed it out and to my surprise the 4000 had blurred
zones in another part of the photo than my LS40 scan (the well known film
flatness DOF problem I guess), but overall quality of the print was *not*
better, no more visible detail.
So fine A3+ (guess B+ in the US) is possible from 35m when using tripod,
slow film (less than 100) and careful post processing in photo editing
software.

regards, Bernhard

- Original Message -
From: "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality


> Vuthy Chrun wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear your experience and opinion on the difference (if
> > there is any) between scanning a 35mm negative or slide with a 4000 DPI
> > scanner and printing the image on a 1200 DPI colour printer versus
scanning
> > a 6x6 negative or slide on, let's say, an Epson 2450 and then printing
the
> > image on the same 1200 DPI colour printer.
>
> What size are you hoping to output?
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Austin Franklin]

> Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> looking prints
> at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with
> his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> better, no more visible detail.

Bernhard,

Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be
had?  Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more
detail?

Regards,

Austin

filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Mark Otway]

Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for
you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to
batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't
rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and
cut them to CD as an archive.

So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
lunch!!).

Any recommendations greatfully received.

Thanks

Mark
http://www.otway.com

filmscanners: I'm being pulled to OS X - mixed os mode experience

[Wayne Williams]

hello,

through my work in video and mac's evolving software i am being pulled in
the direction of os x.  does any one have experience with running os X for
some applications and os 9.2 for scanning / photoshop.  i'm using a nikon
ls4000 ed and epson 1280.

thanks in advance.

wayne
boulder colorado

Re: filmscanners: Trident 4.0 Software

[Chuck Phelps]

SKID Photography wrote:
> 
> It looks like we finally found an affordable Howtek (D4500) with the latest Trident 
>4.0 software.

Good choice.  Make sure you get the dongle with it.  The software will
not operate without it.
> 
> What are users opinions of this software (we are on a Mac, so Aztek is out).

Aztek will operate on a Mac, but I have found Trident is just fine. 
Takes a little time to figure it out though.  Wish there was a manual
for it.  If you know of a manual let me know.
> 
> And specifically, how does it handle color neg. film?

I don't do color neg.  I run a E-6 lab and scanning with contract
proofing service.  The proofing is the only printing I will do.  I
fought for 35 years to get out of the printing darkroom and at my age I
will not go back into printing.  If you scan color neg your in the
printing business.

Hope this helps.

Chuck
Film Service Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> TIA
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Re: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Larry Berman]

Photoshop can do it as a batch process if you separate the horizontals and 
verticals into different folders. ACDSee can do it if your images are JPEGs.

Larry


>So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
>images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
>lunch!!).


***
Larry Berman

http://BermanGraphics.com

***

Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Bernie Ess]

Austin,
The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs and trees,
an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke 25 b&w neg
film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was surprised myself,
but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his scanner (would be
strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the
extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
I think its a mixture of b) and c)

Greetings bernhard

- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
(Epson 2450)


> > Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> > looking prints
> > at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs
with
> > his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> > better, no more visible detail.
>
> Bernhard,
>
> Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be
> had?  Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more
> detail?
>

Re: filmscanners: I'm being pulled to OS X - mixed os modeexperience

[Mikel Peterson]

Wayne,
I have 10.1 and 9.2 on my hotrodded Wall Street. I am seldom in 10.1
because of modem incompatibilities, but I use 9.2 for all PS work, scanning
(Minolta Multi) and downloading files from my DCS 460, and I have never had
a freeze or crash.
Mikel

On 12/7/01 9:15, "Wayne Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. and os 9.2 for scanning / photoshop.  i'm using a nikon
> ls4000 ed and epson 1280.
> 
> thanks in advance.
> 
> wayne
> boulder colorado
> 

filmscanners: Vuescan - Image Brightness

[P Elkin]

With the exposure being reduced on the LS30 & LS2000 as default in Vuescan,
when you increase the image brightness setting say to 1.3 etc, is the
scanner actually increasing its exposure or is the software just pushing the
curves?

Thanks

Philip Elkin

Re: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Possible Qimage at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage

It is a printing program and will batch-rotate for printing, but I don't know whether 
you can batch-rotate and then save as rotated.  Mike Chaney is the developer and is as 
responsive as Ed Hamrick is - go the site and send him an e-mail asking him, or join 
the Qimage newsgroup http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/qimage and ask there.

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?


| 
| Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for
| you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to
| batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't
| rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and
| cut them to CD as an archive.
| 
| So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
| images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
| lunch!!).
| 
| Any recommendations greatfully received.
| 
| Thanks
| 
| Mark
| http://www.otway.com
| 
| 

Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality(Epson 2450)

[Mikel Peterson]

Bernhard,
I would go with c. I scanned a Velvia slide with my Minolta Multi and
had a friend scan the same slide with his 4000 dpi Polaroid, and even up to
Super A3 size, there was virtually no difference, other than the Minolta
scan looked a little sharper, but I attribute that to slightly more contrast
in the scan.
While I have no doubt a 4000 dpi scan gets more detail, if the printer
-- Epson 1270 in my case -- isn't capable of showing that detail, it goes
for naught.
Mikel

On 12/6/01 8:31, "Bernie Ess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 c) the
> extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
>
> 
> Greetings bernhard

RE: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan

[ARMANDO_J_HEREDIA]

Dumb question - was this directed to Bernie or me? My SMTP settings on my
gateway server are set to force plain-text...

-Original Message-
From: Mark Otway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan



>> P.S.  Please send messages in plain text.

Off-topic, but if you're using outlook, check this out:

 http://ntbugtraq.ntadvice.com/default.asp?sid=1&pid=55&did=38

It's an add-in which automatically converts all HTML mails to plain text
before they're viewed. It even works in the preview window on Outlook
XP!

:-)

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - Image Brightness

[EdHamrick]

In a message dated 12/7/2001 11:03:55 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> With the exposure being reduced on the LS30 & LS2000 as default in Vuescan,
>  when you increase the image brightness setting say to 1.3 etc, is the
>  scanner actually increasing its exposure or is the software just pushing 
the
>  curves?

"Color|Brightness" doesn't change the CCD exposure
time.  It's just a multiplier of the "Color|Gamma" option.

To change CCD exposure time, set "Device|Lock exposure"
and change "Device|RGB exposure".

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Austin Franklin]

Hi Bernhard,

I believe I've heard that some Nikons can have focusing problems.

Just as an FYI, you CAN get an equally as "detailed" scan out of a 2700DPI
scanner as with a 4000DPI scanner, depending on where things "line up".
Digital acquisition devices capture UP TO (be careful how you read this,
it's tricky) between a little more than 1/2 the resolution of the
device...up to the resolution of the device.  If you need me to 'spalin that
one more, I can...I know it's not necessarily easy to understand.
Basically, if the detail lines up perfectly with the grid of the sensor,
you'll get it at the resolution of the scanner, but if it falls "off grid",
contrast will be lowered...  Basically, it's a "Nyquist" issue...

Regards,

Austin

> Austin,
> The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs
> and trees,
> an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke 25 b&w neg
> film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was
> surprised myself,
> but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his
> scanner (would be
> strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the
> extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
> I think its a mixture of b) and c)
>
> Greetings bernhard
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
> (Epson 2450)
>
>
> > > Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> > > looking prints
> > > at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs
> with
> > > his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> > > better, no more visible detail.
> >
> > Bernhard,
> >
> > Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be
> > had?  Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more
> > detail?
> >
>
>

Re: filmscanners: I'm being pulled to OS X - mixed os modeexperience

[Wayne Williams]

on 12/7/01 9:05 AM, Mikel Peterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Wayne,
> I have 10.1 and 9.2 on my hotrodded Wall Street. I am seldom in 10.1
> because of modem incompatibilities, but I use 9.2 for all PS work, scanning
> (Minolta Multi) and downloading files from my DCS 460, and I have never had
> a freeze or crash.
> Mikel
> 
> On 12/7/01 9:15, "Wayne Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . and os 9.2 for scanning / photoshop.  i'm using a nikon
>> ls4000 ed and epson 1280.
>> 
>> thanks in advance.
>> 
>> wayne
>> boulder colorado
>> 
> 
hey mikel,

thanks for your reply - so what is a hotrodded wall street?

w.

RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Jawed Ashraf]

Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi
scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or "samples per inch", if we
want to reduce confusion).

Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these
scanners?

Jawed

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
> Sent: 07 December 2001 17:09
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
> (Epson 2450)
>
>
>
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> I believe I've heard that some Nikons can have focusing problems.
>
> Just as an FYI, you CAN get an equally as "detailed" scan out of a 2700DPI
> scanner as with a 4000DPI scanner, depending on where things "line up".
> Digital acquisition devices capture UP TO (be careful how you read this,
> it's tricky) between a little more than 1/2 the resolution of the
> device...up to the resolution of the device.  If you need me to
> 'spalin that
> one more, I can...I know it's not necessarily easy to understand.
> Basically, if the detail lines up perfectly with the grid of the sensor,
> you'll get it at the resolution of the scanner, but if it falls
> "off grid",
> contrast will be lowered...  Basically, it's a "Nyquist" issue...
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
> > Austin,
> > The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs
> > and trees,
> > an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke
> 25 b&w neg
> > film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was
> > surprised myself,
> > but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his
> > scanner (would be
> > strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the
> > extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
> > I think its a mixture of b) and c)
> >
> > Greetings bernhard
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
> > (Epson 2450)
> >
> >
> > > > Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> > > > looking prints
> > > > at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs
> > with
> > > > his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> > > > better, no more visible detail.
> > >
> > > Bernhard,
> > >
> > > Might that have been because there was no more detail on the
> image to be
> > > had?  Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that
> showed more
> > > detail?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: filmscanners: I'm being pulled to OS X - mixed os modeexperience

[Mikel Peterson]

Put in a 466 MHz Power Logix card, 384 megs of RAM and a 20 Gig HD. By the way,
I forgot to mention I use an Epson 1270 and have had no problems with it either.

Mikel


>
> hey mikel,
>
> thanks for your reply - so what is a hotrodded wall street?
>
> w.

RE: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Cliff Ober]

Check out CompuPic Pro (www.photodex.com), it has batch
processing/conversion capabilities, in addition to viewing, thumbnailing,
and indexing functions. It's also extremely fast at decoding and displaying
images.

Cliff Ober


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?



Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for
you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to
batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't
rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and
cut them to CD as an archive.

So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
lunch!!).

Any recommendations greatfully received.

Thanks

Mark
http://www.otway.com

RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)

[Austin Franklin]

> Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi
> scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or "samples per inch", if we
> want to reduce confusion).
>
> Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these
> scanners?
>
> Jawed

Hi Jawed,

I don't quite know what you mean.  The physical sensor IS 4000 sensors per
inch.  The lenses used SHOULD be capable of resolving to beyond thatso
yes, the physical scanner IS capable of resolving to 1/4000th of an
inch...but...as Nyquist pointed out, and I reiterated in the previous post,
that will only GUARANTEE resolving to slightly under 1/2000th of an
inch...at a minimum, and of course, you MAY resolve some things to
1/4000th...

Regards,

Austin

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)

[Brian D. Plikaytis]

Definitely. I agree.

Brian
--
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:05 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11
Available (new focus test)


> Brian wrote:
> >actually polar coordinates might be more applicable in this case.
>
> It still comes back to the question of - relative to what?  The
orientation
> according to the scanner, or that displayed on the screen?  Having a
graphical
> interface with the ability to click on a point is harder to code, but very
> intuitive for the user.  Coordinate systems are not.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Preston Earle]

"Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
"So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
lunch!!).

"Any recommendations greatfully received."


Mark,

What scanning software are you using?

I use VueScan and  have Irfanview
 installed as a quick file
viewer. I have VueScan rotate all images such that the horizontal ones
are properly rotated. Each scan I do comes up in Irfanview as it is
written to disk. The Ifranview image can easily be rotated and saved
with a keystroke or two each. This is quicker than doing the rotation in
Photoshop. However, Ifranview strips any profile from the image (I
attach Adobe 1998 profiles to all my RGB images), so when the image is
opened in Photoshop, a profile must be attached again. Irfanview is free
and is a good overall image viewer. It also has a good slide-show
feature.

Do all your images need to be rotated, and in the same direction? I
suppose you could open them all in Irfanview, close the ones that are
correctly oriented and rotate the ones that need rotating.

Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: filmscanners: I'm being pulled to OS X - mixed os mode experience

[Julian Vrieslander]

On 12/7/01 11:15 AM, Wayne Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:

>through my work in video and mac's evolving software i am being pulled in
>the direction of os x.  does any one have experience with running os X for
>some applications and os 9.2 for scanning / photoshop.  i'm using a nikon
>ls4000 ed and epson 1280.

That's the same as my setup (LS4000ED/1280/OS X/OS 9.2).

I've been experimenting with OS X but doing all of my real work on OS 
9.2.  Much as I want Apple to succeed with OS X, I cannot recommend the 
current version as the foundation for a business or professional user.  
There are still too many unpolished and unfinished pieces.  The most 
significant issue is maintenance and backup.  There is no way to repair a 
damaged OS X system, short of wiping your disk clean, reformatting, and 
reinstalling everything.  Some people try to cope with this by creating 
separate partitions for OS X, OS 9, apps, docs, etc., but that introduces 
other potential problems.  And it is not clear that there is any reliable 
way to do a complete backup and restore of an OS X Mac.  Dantz have not 
released a compatible version of Retrospect because they are waiting for 
Apple to add certain needed features to the OS.  So if your installation 
goes south, you might be able to restore data files from a backup, but 
you might need to reinstall and reconfigure all your apps individually.

I also have some gripes about the user interface design of OS X - I find 
that some simple tasks seem to take less time in OS 9.  Maybe there are 
some new tricks I need to learn.  AppleScript support is still limited.  
But hopefully these issues, and the maintenance/backup problem, will 
shake out in the next few months.

--
Julian Vrieslander 

Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing

[SKID Photography]

Todd Flashner wrote:

> To Austin:
>
> I think Harvey's point is that there may come a situation where someone
> wants a sharp scan of a blurry image. Why not, it's art! ;-)

What I was trying to say was that a scan of a negative (let's say B&W) *is* a scan of 
its grain.  If the
scanner can't get the grain sharply rendered then it can't make a sharp scan.

I don't car if you have the world's on the world's best tripod on the world's sharpest 
film.  If the scanner
canter render the *film* sharply, it can't make a sharp scan.  The holga was used as 
an an example of where
one wants to look at the film itself and not necessarily of the image on hat film.   
Obviously, it went over
Austin's head, or he ignored the concept.

>
>
> Austin wrote:
> > You must be referring to color.  I only talk about B&W, and there is no
> > "inherent flaw" in scanning B&W, if you do not scan B&W in RGB.  The
> > "inherent flaw" you speak of is simply bloom and smear, which isn't really a
> > "flaw" but a characteristic of how CCDs respond to different wavelengths of
> > light.
>
> I think on one level there can be no doubt a CCD film scanner (don't know
> enough about drum scanners to say) will loose sharpness, color or BW. It has
> to, it's an analog generational loss. Light passes through film and gets
> scattered, it then passes through a lens which possibly introduces flare,
> diffraction, and aberration, then it hits the CCD which is prone to blur,
> smear, and blooming, and finally the electronics introduce noise. It's
> analog, the question can really only be "how much" is lost, not "if".

Actually I was referringto drum scans (which tend to be inherrently sharper then ccd 
scans), so the ccd red
herring is of no concern to me.

>
> The whole question about sharpness occurs to me as "how sharp is sharp"? Is
> a file the right degree of sharpness when a print from it is as sharp as a
> traditional darkroom print? Is that a contact print or an enlarged print?
> Cold light head or point source? Should the image at 100% magnification on
> screen look as sharp as the film through a 100x microscope? Or, is the right
> sharpness as sharp as one can make it in Photoshop before offensive
> artifacting occurs? Even if that makes it appear sharper than the original?
> On screen or in print? What output: film recorder, offset press, or Epson?
> If the output process softens an image is it fair to oversharpen in in
> anticipation?
>
> These are rhetorical questions which I pose purely to establish that
> sharpening is a choice, a variable, not a rule.
>
> To Harvey, who wrote:
>
> >> Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low
> >> bit scans?
>
> Harvey is it possible that by and large (certainly more so in the past than
> today) the higher bit scanners have been the higher quality scanners? I mean
> highbit used to come at a steep price, and from quality components. Still
> does for "real" bit depth as you put it, by which I think you mean extended
> dynamic range.

The scanners I was referring to are the very top end drum scanners (in the $100,000 
range). The true 48 bit
scanners vs. the true 36 bit are supposed to need less sharpening.  Pure and simple.  
Go to NancyScans and
talk with them.  Yes the 48 bit scanners are newer, but I think it's more of a 
software change than the
hardware breakthrough.

>
>
> To Austin who wrote:
> 
>
> > What I have said is that people who sharpen might want to look at the rest
> > of the process to find the source of why they sharpen...if the image is
> > fuzzy on the film, it'll be fuzzy on the scan.  Not the grain, but the
> > image.
>
> True.

While I agree with that, and while I think most people over sharpen, my statement (on 
the conceptual level)
still stands:
Higher bit depth scans need less inherent sharpening than lower bit depth scans and 
the sharpness of a scan
has *nothing* to do with the sharpness of the original image.  It's about rendering 
the film emulsion
regardless of what's on it) as crisply as possible in a digital file.

>
>
> > Most people don't sharpen grain, they sharpen the image.

And that image was originally made up of the aforementioned grain.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

RE: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Victor Landweber]

To the list --

CompuPic gets my endorsement. I've looked at lots of 
viewers/thumb-nailers/contact-sheet-makers/batch-processors/slide-show-presenters. 
It does it all and is extremely fast. It views BMP, EPS,  GIF, ICO, JPEG, 
PCX, PNG, TARGA, TIFF, WMF, and flattened PSDs as well as a variety of 
sound and movie formats. You can easily set it up so a control-click 
(command-click on Mac) opens a thumbnail in Photoshop (or any other editor 
you like). You can set up its full-screen display to automatically resize 
an image in even increments to be as large as possible on-screen. Its 
contact-sheet maker is so fast and well designed as to make Photoshop's 
similar capability seem laughable. It's extremely customizable, and many 
functions are available via keyboard shortcuts.

Try it, and don't look back!

-- Victor Landweber


At 12:52 PM 12/7/2001 -0600, you wrote:

>Check out CompuPic Pro (www.photodex.com), it has batch
>processing/conversion capabilities, in addition to viewing, thumbnailing,
>and indexing functions. It's also extremely fast at decoding and displaying
>images.
>
>Cliff Ober
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway
>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:50 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?
>
>
>
>Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for
>you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to
>batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't
>rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and
>cut them to CD as an archive.
>
>So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
>images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
>lunch!!).
>
>Any recommendations greatfully received.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark
>http://www.otway.com
>
>
>
>
>-=-=-
>SBG-Priority: 5 (Lowest) http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/

RE: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing

[Austin Franklin]

Harvey,

> What I was trying to say was that a scan of a negative (let's say
> B&W) *is* a scan of its grain.  If the
> scanner can't get the grain sharply rendered then it can't make a
> sharp scan.

You can get sharp scans and NOT scan "down to" the film grain.  In fact,
most scanners do not resolve to near the grain (or dye clouds).  Sharpness
is a matter of enlargement also.  What may appear not sharp on the monitor
at a billion times magnification, may print, at a particular magnification,
as sharp as it possibly can get, and even if the original scan were sharper,
it would not make for a sharper print.

> I don't car if you have the world's on the world's best tripod on
> the world's sharpest film.  If the scanner
> canter render the *film* sharply, it can't make a sharp scan.

Of course if the scanner can't FOCUS ON the film as well as it can resolve,
it won't make as sharp a scan as it could, but that's entirely different
than being able to resolve to the film grain.  And, as I said above,
sharpness is a factor of enlargement too.

> The holga was used as an an example of where
> one wants to look at the film itself and not necessarily of the
> image on hat film.   Obviously, it went over
> Austin's head, or he ignored the concept.

No, Harvey, it wasn't over my head, and I did not ignore "the concept".  I
said a number of times that I thought it wasn't relevant (to the general
case and to the issue being discussed).

> Actually I was referringto drum scans (which tend to be
> inherrently sharper then ccd scans), so the ccd red
> herring is of no concern to me.

For color that is true, since there is no smear with a PMT scanner (it only
scans one pixel at a time, not a line at a time like a CCD does), but that
is not necessarily true for B&W, if the CCD scanner scans only using a
single ND filter.

> > To Harvey, who wrote:
> >
> > >> Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low
> > >> bit scans?
> >
> > Harvey is it possible that by and large (certainly more so in
> the past than
> > today) the higher bit scanners have been the higher quality
> scanners? I mean
> > highbit used to come at a steep price, and from quality
> components. Still
> > does for "real" bit depth as you put it, by which I think you
> mean extended
> > dynamic range.
>
> The scanners I was referring to are the very top end drum
> scanners (in the $100,000 range). The true 48 bit
> scanners vs. the true 36 bit are supposed to need less
> sharpening.  Pure and simple.  Go to NancyScans and
> talk with them.  Yes the 48 bit scanners are newer, but I think
> it's more of a software change than the
> hardware breakthrough.

"Supposed to" can be for many different reasons.  I have designed quite a
few digital imaging systems.  It makes no sense that higher bit depth would
require less sharpening for only the reason of higher bit depth.  It sounds
to me that NancyScans is probably right, THEIR particular 48 bit scanner
requires less sharpening as THEIR 36 bit scanner, but that does NOT mean it
is because of the bit depth.  A lot of PMT scanners have sharpening inherent
in the hardware.

> my statement (on the conceptual level)
> still stands:
> Higher bit depth scans need less inherent sharpening than lower
> bit depth scans

It's technically and conceptually wrong, and I've given very simple examples
that show it is wrong.  A larger tonal range does not give you a sharper
image.  Make a print of a solid black box occupying %50 or so of the center
of a white piece of paper.  Then make another print with a gradient from the
center of the paper out the same distance as the box, going from
0-255...tape them both to a wall next to each other, and stand back some
40'...tell me which one looks sharper.

> and the sharpness of a scan
> has *nothing* to do with the sharpness of the original image.

No, but as I said, that's not the issue.  The issue was what one sees on the
final output, and is it sharp or not.  You agreed that if your original
image was fuzzy, then your scan would *appear* fuzzy (which was my original
point that you now agree with), yes, you may be in exceptional focus on the
film, but how on earth do you tell the difference (if you are not resolving
to grain, which most people don't) on the final print, and what difference
does it make (again, unless you are resolving to film grain) your resultant
print WILL be fuzzy either way?

> > > Most people don't sharpen grain, they sharpen the image.
>
> And that image was originally made up of the aforementioned grain.

Of course film is made up of grain, at least B&W films.  I don't understand
the relevance...unless you are resolving to the film grain, which most
people don't, except on grainy film.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I disagree with the relevance
of it, except in the circumstance (the Holga/artsy fartsy example) you
mention...and that circumstance is not what most people who scan, and get
fuzzy scans, do, nor, as I said, do I bel

RE: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?

[Larry Berman]

But does it rotate uncompressed files? That was the original poster's question.

Do any of the "viewing" type programs allow lossless rotation of 
uncompressed? Do they actually offer lossless JPEG rotation?

Larry


>CompuPic gets my endorsement.


***
Larry Berman

http://BermanGraphics.com

***

Re: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)? - Vueprint

[P Elkin]

I use Vueprint - open the first image in the folder, press end to rotate 90
degrees etc press v to save, press space bar to open next image. I did 72
batch scans in no time at all.

Philip
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:50 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?


>
> Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for
> you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to
> batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't
> rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and
> cut them to CD as an archive.
>
> So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50
> images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my
> lunch!!).
>
> Any recommendations greatfully received.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
> http://www.otway.com
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing

[SKID Photography]

Austin,
I guess we are back to my original disclaimer about not being able to discuss this.  
If you claim that
'scans', are not of the grain of the film, I don't understand where the scanner is 
getting it's information
from.

If you insist that in this field (photography) a 'Holga' image is nothing more than an 
artsy fartsy example
and not a valid form of photography, I cannot carry on a conversation with you.

BTW:  We have earned thousands upon thousands of dollars doing commercial portraits 
using Holgas, so in my
opinion it is not just 'artsy fartsy' and I resent your narrow mindedness on this 
topic.  If it does not fit
into your workflow, so be it, but to dismiss it for the rest of the world is sort of 
sad.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Harvey,
>
> > What I was trying to say was that a scan of a negative (let's say
> > B&W) *is* a scan of its grain.  If the
> > scanner can't get the grain sharply rendered then it can't make a
> > sharp scan.
>
> You can get sharp scans and NOT scan "down to" the film grain.  In fact,
> most scanners do not resolve to near the grain (or dye clouds).  Sharpness
> is a matter of enlargement also.  What may appear not sharp on the monitor
> at a billion times magnification, may print, at a particular magnification,
> as sharp as it possibly can get, and even if the original scan were sharper,
> it would not make for a sharper print.

>
>
> > I don't car if you have the world's on the world's best tripod on
> > the world's sharpest film.  If the scanner
> > canter render the *film* sharply, it can't make a sharp scan.
>
> Of course if the scanner can't FOCUS ON the film as well as it can resolve,
> it won't make as sharp a scan as it could, but that's entirely different
> than being able to resolve to the film grain.  And, as I said above,
> sharpness is a factor of enlargement too.
>
> > The holga was used as an an example of where
> > one wants to look at the film itself and not necessarily of the
> > image on hat film.   Obviously, it went over
> > Austin's head, or he ignored the concept.
>
> No, Harvey, it wasn't over my head, and I did not ignore "the concept".  I
> said a number of times that I thought it wasn't relevant (to the general
> case and to the issue being discussed).
>
> > Actually I was referringto drum scans (which tend to be
> > inherrently sharper then ccd scans), so the ccd red
> > herring is of no concern to me.
>
> For color that is true, since there is no smear with a PMT scanner (it only
> scans one pixel at a time, not a line at a time like a CCD does), but that
> is not necessarily true for B&W, if the CCD scanner scans only using a
> single ND filter.
>
> > > To Harvey, who wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low
> > > >> bit scans?
> > >
> > > Harvey is it possible that by and large (certainly more so in
> > the past than
> > > today) the higher bit scanners have been the higher quality
> > scanners? I mean
> > > highbit used to come at a steep price, and from quality
> > components. Still
> > > does for "real" bit depth as you put it, by which I think you
> > mean extended
> > > dynamic range.
> >
> > The scanners I was referring to are the very top end drum
> > scanners (in the $100,000 range). The true 48 bit
> > scanners vs. the true 36 bit are supposed to need less
> > sharpening.  Pure and simple.  Go to NancyScans and
> > talk with them.  Yes the 48 bit scanners are newer, but I think
> > it's more of a software change than the
> > hardware breakthrough.
>
> "Supposed to" can be for many different reasons.  I have designed quite a
> few digital imaging systems.  It makes no sense that higher bit depth would
> require less sharpening for only the reason of higher bit depth.  It sounds
> to me that NancyScans is probably right, THEIR particular 48 bit scanner
> requires less sharpening as THEIR 36 bit scanner, but that does NOT mean it
> is because of the bit depth.  A lot of PMT scanners have sharpening inherent
> in the hardware.
>
> > my statement (on the conceptual level)
> > still stands:
> > Higher bit depth scans need less inherent sharpening than lower
> > bit depth scans
>
> It's technically and conceptually wrong, and I've given very simple examples
> that show it is wrong.  A larger tonal range does not give you a sharper
> image.  Make a print of a solid black box occupying %50 or so of the center
> of a white piece of paper.  Then make another print with a gradient from the
> center of the paper out the same distance as the box, going from
> 0-255...tape them both to a wall next to each other, and stand back some
> 40'...tell me which one looks sharper.
>
> > and the sharpness of a scan
> > has *nothing* to do with the sharpness of the original image.
>
> No, but as I said, that's not the issue.  The issue was what one sees on the
> final output, and is it sharp or not.  You agreed that if your original
> image was fuzzy, t

filmscanners: Re:Ls2000/Win XP

[Op's]

Have been running Nikon Scan 3.1 and win ME with no problems with the LS2000.

Did an installation of XP now Photoshop or stand along   the scanner is not recognised 
 nor the twain drive..

Have tried reinstall of both PS and Nikon Scan still no avail.

Any hints to rectify the problem? or where do I look.

Thanks

Rob