[filmscanners] RE: Canon's new digital SLR
This camera is now available in some shops in the US and Asia and there is a lively debate on it in a special forum at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1031. So far some problems with flash exposure have been reported and the main complaint so far seems to be the lack of flash exposure compensation from the camera. Martin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Mittwoch, 17. September 2003 04:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Canon's new digital SLR Since traffic is quiet here (other than the hi bit "my eyes are better than yours are" debate, again) and since most of use are watching the digital camera market with interest, I just received word of an apparently newly released Canon camera, the Canon Digital Rebel, which takes standard EOS lenses and uses a 6.3 megapixel sensor. It's a lightweight SLR selling on the street for $900 US without the newly introduced 18-55mm (equivalent to 28-90mm at 35mm frame size) lens. The lens adds about $100 to the price. List price of camera and lens is $1400 US. From the write up, it seems to be a decent camera with some limitations in terms of choice of features (fairly automated). The new lens mount will allow for some new lightweight inexpensive lens designs, but the reviewer complained that the mirror mechanics required to accommodate the mount made the camera noisy. Otherwise, the camera received high marks from PC Mag. Still, this is the first SLR in this price range with this resolution image sensor. Digital camera prices are finally reaching something approaching earth, and I may just have to buy one soon. Even here in Canada, "point and shoot" rangefinder type digitals are coming in at about $100 CAN per megapixel for up to 3+ meg versions (with a zoom lens) and higher res ones with more features are between $150-200 CAN per megapixel. For people wanting some info about the new Canon: http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-60-1-1-56644-2527-1 Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better about Vuescan? (was 24 bit vs more)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Petru Lauric > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan vs Insight: what is > better about Vuescan? (was 24 bit vs more) > > > Last I checked the > slide results were fairly comparable but the negatives were a > lot easier to scan with VueScan. That's interesting. I've always had a lot more problems with negatives than slides with VueScan. I get much more consistent results with slides and have to muck around in PS much less. I wonder what the differences are in our workflow or our scanner model, or both? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better aboutVuescan? (was 24 bit vs more)
> I am scanning slides almost exclusively. I got VueScan as a > benefit of being > a VuePrint purchaser years ago. I got free upgrades for a long time, but > they ended that with a version just above my 7.5.41. Stan - so did I, but I still get free upgrades...? tim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The last I checked, Vuescan doesn't have a curves tool, although it's high > on the author's list of things to add. What it does have support for is > color calibration. Some of the scanner software has film profiling, and I've done quite a bit of work with it, unfortunately, that only sort of works. There are variables in film development, and exposure that will render profiles only somewhat useful. They get you in ballpark, but you still typically have some work to do. <<< Of course. One rarely sees a photographer carrying a color temperature meter and set of color correction filters. And one rarely wants to do that outside the studio; one wants one's sunrise and sunset landscapes to be warm, and one's harsh high noon shots to be harsh. But do you scan negative films as positive and invert and remove the mask by hand? If you are getting a positive RGB file as a starting point, you are using just as much "automation" as Vuescan provides. >> How does the color calibration in VS work? << I don't know. I've only used it as a scanner driver. At the point I was using it, the reason people used it was that most scanner software did you too many favors, but Vuescan gave you full manual control over everything the scanner did. > and well worth the price of admission for people who want more automated scanning. < You're still doing cheapshots: it's not pretty. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better aboutVuescan ? (was 24 bit vs more)
On 09/16/03 7:24 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be fair, I still am using version 7.5.41. Does the latest 7.6.XX offer > significantly more features or functionality? I got the last "free" upgrade > before Ed started charging again. You can look at the changes history on Ed's website to see what's been added. I don't recall if 7.5.41 included color management functions. Vuescan now recognizes and uses monitor ICC profiles. If your monitor is calibrated and profiled, this means that the image displays are about as accurate as they are in Photoshop. Current Vuescan also provides functions for building scanner ICC profiles and film ICC profiles. You need to obtain an IT8 calibration target to use these features. I am still grappling with the film profiling feature - not sure I understand how to use it effectively. But I did the scanner profiling on my LS4000, and it made a significant improvement in the results I get. Fuji Velvia slides used to require a lot of post-scan tweaking in Photoshop to get the colors right. But when I use a scanner profile (built from an IT8 target on Velvia), the required adjustments are much smaller, and often unnecessary. -- Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better about Vuescan? (was 24 bit vs more)
I am scanning slides almost exclusively. I got VueScan as a benefit of being a VuePrint purchaser years ago. I got free upgrades for a long time, but they ended that with a version just above my 7.5.41. I would have to buy the program again now and although it's not very expensive, I just haven't found the results to be superior. Perhaps it's the "engineer and not the engine." Stan Are you scanning negatives or slides? Last I checked the slide results were fairly comparable but the negatives were a lot easier to scan with VueScan. Also, I found Insight to be fairly simplistic so I'm using VueScan. Regarding the speed: I think it depends a lot on the focusing option (off/preview/scan) you're using. >To be fair, I still am using version 7.5.41. Does the latest 7.6.XX offer >significantly more features or functionality? I got the last "free" upgrade >before Ed started charging again. > If 7.5.x didn't convince you, I doubt 7.6 will :) Why can't you get the 7.6.x version? Regards, Petru. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Canon's new digital SLR
I want to correct some information I received which appears to be incorrect. Although one website indicated the list price of the camera package was $1400, that is apparently not accurate. The list price is $999 US, and it also seems to be the current street price as well. The camera is called the Canon EOS 300D most places other then the US, (in Japan it is called the Canon Kiss Digital). When I mention that the camera mount makes the camera "noisy", I mean acoustically, not image noise. Since the announcement for the camera was about a month ago, there are already a number of fairly complete reviews for this camera. Here's one: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/ Art Arthur Entlich wrote: > Since traffic is quiet here (other than the hi bit "my eyes are better > than yours are" debate, again) and since most of use are watching > the digital camera market with interest, I just received word of an > apparently newly released Canon camera, the Canon Digital Rebel, which > takes standard EOS lenses and uses a 6.3 megapixel sensor. It's a > lightweight SLR selling on the street for $900 US without the newly > introduced 18-55mm (equivalent to 28-90mm at 35mm frame size) lens. The > lens adds about $100 to the price. List price of camera and lens is > $1400 US. > > From the write up, it seems to be a decent camera with some limitations > in terms of choice of features (fairly automated). The new lens mount > will allow for some new lightweight inexpensive lens designs, but the > reviewer complained that the mirror mechanics required to accommodate > the mount made the camera noisy. Otherwise, the camera received high > marks from PC Mag. > > Still, this is the first SLR in this price range with this resolution > image sensor. Digital camera prices are finally reaching something > approaching earth, and I may just have to buy one soon. > > Even here in Canada, "point and shoot" rangefinder type digitals are > coming in at about $100 CAN per megapixel for up to 3+ meg versions > (with a zoom lens) and higher res ones with more features are between > $150-200 CAN per megapixel. > > For people wanting some info about the new Canon: > > http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-60-1-1-56644-2527-1 > > Art > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better about Vuescan? (was 24 bit vs more)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >For the SS4000: I have tried many times to use the Vuescan software rather >than Insight but I keep returning to Insight. First, I find Insight >significantly faster than Vuescan. Second, I find the controls in Insight to >be just easier to use. > >I still have Vuescan on my computer and am interested in continuing to learn >it. I am interested, though, to understand exactly what Vuescan does better >in the hands of others. I can't see that it focuses any better. I don't get >more accurate color rendition. I can't see that it handles shadow areas any >better. > >Or I could ask the question this way: are there any specific image types or >image characteristics that Vuescan handles better? > Are you scanning negatives or slides? Last I checked the slide results were fairly comparable but the negatives were a lot easier to scan with VueScan. Also, I found Insight to be fairly simplistic so I'm using VueScan. Regarding the speed: I think it depends a lot on the focusing option (off/preview/scan) you're using. >To be fair, I still am using version 7.5.41. Does the latest 7.6.XX offer >significantly more features or functionality? I got the last "free" upgrade >before Ed started charging again. > If 7.5.x didn't convince you, I doubt 7.6 will :) Why can't you get the 7.6.x version? Regards, Petru. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Canon's new digital SLR
Since traffic is quiet here (other than the hi bit "my eyes are better than yours are" debate, again) and since most of use are watching the digital camera market with interest, I just received word of an apparently newly released Canon camera, the Canon Digital Rebel, which takes standard EOS lenses and uses a 6.3 megapixel sensor. It's a lightweight SLR selling on the street for $900 US without the newly introduced 18-55mm (equivalent to 28-90mm at 35mm frame size) lens. The lens adds about $100 to the price. List price of camera and lens is $1400 US. From the write up, it seems to be a decent camera with some limitations in terms of choice of features (fairly automated). The new lens mount will allow for some new lightweight inexpensive lens designs, but the reviewer complained that the mirror mechanics required to accommodate the mount made the camera noisy. Otherwise, the camera received high marks from PC Mag. Still, this is the first SLR in this price range with this resolution image sensor. Digital camera prices are finally reaching something approaching earth, and I may just have to buy one soon. Even here in Canada, "point and shoot" rangefinder type digitals are coming in at about $100 CAN per megapixel for up to 3+ meg versions (with a zoom lens) and higher res ones with more features are between $150-200 CAN per megapixel. For people wanting some info about the new Canon: http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-60-1-1-56644-2527-1 Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi David, > The last I checked, Vuescan doesn't have a curves tool, although it's high > on the author's list of things to add. What it does have support for is > color calibration. Some of the scanner software has film profiling, and I've done quite a bit of work with it, unfortunately, that only sort of works. There are variables in film development, and exposure that will render profiles only somewhat useful. They get you in ballpark, but you still typically have some work to do. How does the color calibration in VS work? To close the calibration loop, you really need to take a picture of a known target and do so for each film/development/camera and/or lense (as different lenses render colors differently) etc., and even then there may be other variables that makes it not work as well as you might hope...like exposure/development etc. The only way to close the loop somewhat is to take a picture of a color target on each roll...which I did routinely when doing commercial work. I've color calibrated one of my flatbeds using a color target (and the scanner software that came with it) and it worked OK. I'm sure for some people, they may be perfectly happy with that type of open loop calibration, and given Viewscan's audience, that, no matter how Ed did it, unless he really did it wrong... is probably a great feature, and well worth the price of admission for people who want more automated scanning. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Vuescan vs Insight: what is better about Vuescan ? (was 24 bit vs more)
For the SS4000: I have tried many times to use the Vuescan software rather than Insight but I keep returning to Insight. First, I find Insight significantly faster than Vuescan. Second, I find the controls in Insight to be just easier to use. I still have Vuescan on my computer and am interested in continuing to learn it. I am interested, though, to understand exactly what Vuescan does better in the hands of others. I can't see that it focuses any better. I don't get more accurate color rendition. I can't see that it handles shadow areas any better. Or I could ask the question this way: are there any specific image types or image characteristics that Vuescan handles better? To be fair, I still am using version 7.5.41. Does the latest 7.6.XX offer significantly more features or functionality? I got the last "free" upgrade before Ed started charging again. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Are there multiple versions of SRGB?
To the best of my knowledge, there is only one version of sRGB. From what you have written, I would assume that Nikon is using the same sRGB but the difference between I & III has to do with other factors such as the default setting of white and black points and tonal curves of the color space to those that Nikon thinks is best suited to portatrits versus landscapes; the establishing of other camera settings and/or features in conjunction with the sRGB space; or the use of particular camera functions in conjunction with the use of the sRGB color space. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nagaraj, Ramesh Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Are there multiple versions of SRGB? I was reading the spec of Nikon D2H at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/page2.asp It says Color space * I: sRGB (Portraits & Natural Skin Tones) * II: Adobe RGB (Wide Gamut) * III: sRGB (Landscapes and Flora Are there multiple versions of SRGB? I do not think this is 100% OT beacuse its about sRGB. Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I have little experience with Viewscan, << FWIW, Arthur, your cheapshots against Vuescan are really stupid; you don't know what you are talking about. It's a powerful, flexible, scanner driver. It's not about "automation" at all. The software provided with scanners does a lot more things automatically than Vuescan. > as I have no need for it. My scanner software gives me perfect scans, because I know how to use it. Setpoint too and tonal curve tool. Anything beyond that is purely fluff, at least for my scanner. < The last I checked, Vuescan doesn't have a curves tool, although it's high on the author's list of things to add. What it does have support for is color calibration. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Frank, > > Perhaps it's true that for someone who wants the software to > > simply "hand" then a scan, Viewscan does a better job at > > automating the process. > > And I presume you think this is me? How condescending. Frank, did I say that was you? No, I didn't. Don't read things into what I say that I simply didn't say. I was stating what I thought were the advantages Viewscan offered, and that is one of them. If it HAPPENS to fit you, then that's fine, and certainly NOT condescending. > The only thing I > set most of the time in VueScan is the brightness level and accept the > rest of the defaults, doing minor touch-up in Photoshop. But...this means you DO in fact want an automated process...doesn't it? And, my comment that Viewscan does a better job at automating the process DOES apply to you... > I have much less to do in VueScan than I do in Insight. I > don't even use the latter anymore, it is so poor by comparison. All you should need to get perfect scans (NOT perfect images, as there may be things you may want to do beyond simply scanning) is to be able to set the setpoints and adjust the tonal curves. That's all you need to do to get perfect scans. > Do you > even have any experience with VueScan, or are you, as usual, just > talking through an orifice of your body that does not bear mentioning? I have little experience with Viewscan, as I have no need for it. My scanner software gives me perfect scans, because I know how to use it. Setpoint too and tonal curve tool. Anything beyond that is purely fluff, at least for my scanner. > Also, re your tedious insistance on "proof" for every claim that people > are making regarding the usefulness they have found for > 8 bit color > scans, you know, that's like asking for yet another proof of Einstein's > theory of relativity before you'll accept it: totally passé. Call it what you want, Frank...as your head is in the...er...sand... It's your, and anyone else's, lack of providing any evidence that makes your position rather annoying. You are clearly espousing something that you simply have no experience with...or you, or someone, anyone, else would provide the evidence. > > I find setting setpoints and > > adjusting tonal curves quite easy. > > How does this distinguish you from most experienced scanner people on > this list? Because one is experienced certainly doesn't mean one knows what one's doing ;-) > > Or, perhaps for scanners > > that aren't all that good, all the extra processing options > > in Viewscan can be very beneficial. > > I hardly ever use anything else but brightness. Then why aren't you able to use the scanner interface that comes with the SS4000? Does it not come with a setpoint tool and a tonal curve tool? Do you simply not understand setpoints and tonal curves enough to use them? BTW, do you actually know what "brightness" does to the actual data? > So maybe the SS4000 is > exempt from your dismissal of "scanners that aren't all that good." The SS4k is a great scanner, and I've never said anything different, but it IS a low-mid end scanner. It's one of the better of the low-mid end scanners, that's for sure. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Are there multiple versions of SRGB?
sRGB may have a strict technical definition but different companies apply it differently. Bruce Fraser & Andrew Rodney in particular have pointed out that what Nikon, Fuji and Canon (to point out three big examples) call sRGB or Adobe RGB in their cameras isn't quite exactly a "pure" implementation of these colorspaces. All cameras or scanners are in fact going to produce device specific interpretations of color. The way to get around this is to go to raw or NEF captures capture with as wide of Colorspace as the device will produce where the camera is doing no (or in all probability very little) colorspace management. The downside to this approach is that you have to do a lot more work. That works fine in some situations but in others, it doesn't. You also have to be working on an accurately calibrated and profiled monitor to actually see what the true colors of your captures. The Adobe Gamma utility or even the Apple Colorsync utility won't get you to an accurately calibrated and profiled image on your monitor ,but given the high degree of knowledge on this list I assume everyone already knows that. Ellis Vener Atlanta, GA "I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers." - Mahatma Gandhi Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Austin Franklin > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more > > > Frank, > > > By low end scanners, do you mean something like the > Polaroid SS4000? > > Because VueScan produces much better scans than Polacolor Insight. > > Viewscan, nor Insight, nor any scanner software "produces" > the scans, the scanner and the scanner operator does. Duh! Reminds me of the assertion that developed film doesn't have grain, but "dye clouds," and about as enlightening. > Perhaps it's true that for someone who wants the software to > simply "hand" then a scan, Viewscan does a better job at > automating the process. And I presume you think this is me? How condescending. The only thing I set most of the time in VueScan is the brightness level and accept the rest of the defaults, doing minor touch-up in Photoshop. This is for slide film. I have much less to do in VueScan than I do in Insight. I don't even use the latter anymore, it is so poor by comparison. Do you even have any experience with VueScan, or are you, as usual, just talking through an orifice of your body that does not bear mentioning? Also, re your tedious insistance on "proof" for every claim that people are making regarding the usefulness they have found for > 8 bit color scans, you know, that's like asking for yet another proof of Einstein's theory of relativity before you'll accept it: totally passé. > I find setting setpoints and > adjusting tonal curves quite easy. How does this distinguish you from most experienced scanner people on this list? > Or, perhaps for scanners > that aren't all that good, all the extra processing options > in Viewscan can be very beneficial. I hardly ever use anything else but brightness. So maybe the SS4000 is exempt from your dismissal of "scanners that aren't all that good." Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Are there multiple versions of SRGB?
Nagaraj, Ramesh wrote . . . > I was reading the spec of Nikon D2H at > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/page2.asp > > It says > > > Color space * I: sRGB (Portraits & Natural Skin Tones) > * II: Adobe RGB (Wide Gamut) > * III: sRGB (Landscapes and Flora > > Are there multiple versions of SRGB? > > I do not think this is 100% OT beacuse its about sRGB. > > Thanks > Ramesh The sRGB color space has a strict definition. There is only one version. I'm not quite sure what Nikon is trying to say there -- maybe an editing error, or they make modifications to the sRBG specification with some other parameter on top of it, like sRBG with 2.0 gamma. I'm just guessing.. Joel Rittvo Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Are there multiple versions of SRGB?
I was reading the spec of Nikon D2H at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/page2.asp It says Color space * I: sRGB (Portraits & Natural Skin Tones) * II: Adobe RGB (Wide Gamut) * III: sRGB (Landscapes and Flora Are there multiple versions of SRGB? I do not think this is 100% OT beacuse its about sRGB. Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Thanks for that info Bob. Does the Nikon 4000 "suffer" from any focus issues, at least in your experience (assuming you have one)? BTW, do you think the IR dust removal works well? It seems to me that it's (dust problem) exacerbated on scanners that use point light sources, like LEDs... I've literally got no experience what so ever with any of this "extra" processing that the newer scanners have...as my scanner doesn't have any of these issues that this seem to mitigate... Regards, Austin > It is with the Nikon 4000. Vuescan simply saves it as an extra channel if > you ask it to. You can then look at it and see what it has marked for > removal. > > Bob Frost. > > - Original Message - > From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The IR data is simply a fourth channel, and could > easily be passed on if designed to do so. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
It is with the Nikon 4000. Vuescan simply saves it as an extra channel if you ask it to. You can then look at it and see what it has marked for removal. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The IR data is simply a fourth channel, and could easily be passed on if designed to do so. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, > > Arguing > > for 8bits is just plain silly. > > Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows ignorance. Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your "belief", but actual images... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> Frank, > > > > Arguing > > > for 8bits is just plain silly. > > > > Silly is one word, sophistry is another. > > Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows > ignorance. > > Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had > tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before > the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your > "belief", but actual images... > > Austin BTW, that wasn't meant to be as gruff sounding as it probably came across. What I was simply trying to say, was a statement, such as you and whom you were quoting made, can only be based on a lack of experience and/or understanding, which in a word, is ignorance. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Frank, > By low end scanners, do you mean something like the Polaroid SS4000? > Because VueScan produces much better scans than Polacolor Insight. Viewscan, nor Insight, nor any scanner software "produces" the scans, the scanner and the scanner operator does. Perhaps it's true that for someone who wants the software to simply "hand" then a scan, Viewscan does a better job at automating the process. I find setting setpoints and adjusting tonal curves quite easy. Or, perhaps for scanners that aren't all that good, all the extra processing options in Viewscan can be very beneficial. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Austin Franklin > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more > > > Hi Rob, > Well, I've been around since long before Viewscan...and IMO, > Viewscan was simply a scanner program that was better (in > some instances) a LOT better than any of the programs that > came with the low end scanners of the time...and allowed > people to get better scans from low end scanners. By low end scanners, do you mean something like the Polaroid SS4000? Because VueScan produces much better scans than Polacolor Insight. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> > Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-) > Yup, it does not cost me anything more than working with > 8bits but a bit of storage for those images that I archive > for future editing. So why risk loosing information. Arguing > for 8bits is just plain silly. Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi Rob, > "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? > > That is probably how every filmscanner that you or I would > > use, works... The issue is the software (and possibly hardware), and > > how it allows you to control this...but if you can get 8 bit data, it's > > got to have it's setpoints set and tonal curves applied. Some scanners > > do the setpoints automatically in the scanner. Some use "profiles" to > > apply the tonal curves... > > I presume what you mean by tonal curves are curves applied to the data to > correct for the behaviour of the scanner's own hardware and the > behaviour of > the film (ie. a film profile). That sounds about right, but tonal curves also correct for exposure and any other tonal changes you want to make to the image. > Maybe I'm not understanding what "set > points" are. I thought you meant black and white points but now I'm not > sure. Yes, setpoints are the black and white extents of the image. The black setpoint and the white setpoint make up the two setpoints. > >> Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? > > I'm not assuming any specific interface... > > Another question then - do you use Vuescan? No. > Because my > understanding of the > original rationale behind vuescan (which has shifted a little > over time) was > to get the most possible useful information out of the scan, and > leave the a > lot of the contrast and tonal correction to editing later. Well, I've been around since long before Viewscan...and IMO, Viewscan was simply a scanner program that was better (in some instances) a LOT better than any of the programs that came with the low end scanners of the time...and allowed people to get better scans from low end scanners. > Maybe Ed has > changed his rationale completely over the years, but I don't > recall him ever > recommending that you should do all the image tonal manipulation > in Vuescan > and virtually none of it in an editor afterward. I don't konw what Ed recommends or not, aside from buying his program...nor am I really too concerned it... I also don't know how good the setpoint and tonal tools are in Viewscan, but as I've said, you should either get the setpoints and tonal curves "right" (requiring none to little modification later) in the scanner software, or use raw scan data and do the setpoints and tonal manipulation in your image editing program of choice. > >> OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by "raw data". > >Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw > data. Raw > >data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal > curves > >applied. > >What do you think raw data means? > > I would have taken raw data to mean exactly what it says - the bytes > produced by the scanner with no manipulation whatsoever, meaning > you'd have > to remove the neg mask, invert and do tonal correction in an editor. Correct. That's not different than what I said, except my statement is descriptive of what the raw data is, yours is what the raw data requires...except you're missing setting setpoints, which really has to be done before tonal correction. > Perhaps my view of "raw" is skewed by being a programmer or using Vuescan; > whose raw files are exactly as I described above. Raw data is exactly as I have described it. You can give it any additional attributes you want... > More > importantly, the raw > data is useless to me if I want to take advantage of the scanner's IR dust > removal feature. I have no need for any features like that, but my understanding is what yours is as well, you can't use those types of "features" with raw data...unless the scanner also passes the IR data to the scanner application along with the raw data. The IR data is simply a fourth channel, and could easily be passed on if designed to do so. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, > I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a > headache with > posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. How do you know the original scanner data is any good? > > A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding > it with the > maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. How do you know? > I have mentioned many times the following link which proves my statement > when this discussion about 8 bit/16 bit is going on again and again: > http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/7627.html?cprose=I20 That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation problem with 8 bit color data. Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG problem, and no one can! This must include a raw scan, the same scan converted to 8 bit, manipulated, that shows visibly noticeable tonal degradation. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? > That is probably how every filmscanner that you or I would > use, works... The issue is the software (and possibly hardware), and > how it allows you to control this...but if you can get 8 bit data, it's > got to have it's setpoints set and tonal curves applied. Some scanners > do the setpoints automatically in the scanner. Some use "profiles" to > apply the tonal curves... I presume what you mean by tonal curves are curves applied to the data to correct for the behaviour of the scanner's own hardware and the behaviour of the film (ie. a film profile). Maybe I'm not understanding what "set points" are. I thought you meant black and white points but now I'm not sure. >> Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? > I'm not assuming any specific interface... Another question then - do you use Vuescan? Because my understanding of the original rationale behind vuescan (which has shifted a little over time) was to get the most possible useful information out of the scan, and leave the a lot of the contrast and tonal correction to editing later. Maybe Ed has changed his rationale completely over the years, but I don't recall him ever recommending that you should do all the image tonal manipulation in Vuescan and virtually none of it in an editor afterward. >> OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by "raw data". >Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw data. Raw >data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal curves >applied. >What do you think raw data means? I would have taken raw data to mean exactly what it says - the bytes produced by the scanner with no manipulation whatsoever, meaning you'd have to remove the neg mask, invert and do tonal correction in an editor. Perhaps my view of "raw" is skewed by being a programmer or using Vuescan; whose raw files are exactly as I described above. More importantly, the raw data is useless to me if I want to take advantage of the scanner's IR dust removal feature. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Henk, > A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the > maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. > Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8 > bits/channel. VueScan is ideal in bringing all the information which my > scanner can find from film to my digital image, but is not designed to > manipulate the images. Check out Picture Window Pro. Completely 16bit. And for me, a more intuitive user interface than PS. Quite affordable (less than $100). Their new adavanced sharpening tool rivals Neat Image! Dowload a trial version from dl-c.com > Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-) Yup, it does not cost me anything more than working with 8bits but a bit of storage for those images that I archive for future editing. So why risk loosing information. Arguing for 8bits is just plain silly. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
"Henk de Jong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Simply stated: I think Arthur is wrong! ;-) <<< Me too, but on to happier things... >>> I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8 bits/channel. Picture Window Pro is 16-bits throughout. Everywhere. http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/ There's a new version out with Neat Image like noise reduction/sharpening. The bad news, though, is that 16-bits per channel is not a panacea. If the original data is bad, editing will make it worse. And scanner output is pretty funky. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
