[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > I don't think so. I am using version 7.6.something. I do not > remember the > complete version number and am not near the system that has the > software on > it. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place, I would welcome any > suggestins > as to the location of the comand that produces a visual histogram. Laurie: Look at the top of the screen. See those tabs labelled "Prev Hist" and "Scan Hist". Click those to see histograms of the preview image and scanned image. Peter Marquis-Kyle www.marquis-kyle.com.au 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
The current version of Vuescan is v7.6.61. It provides for histograms of both the Preview scan and the record scan. That's what the Preview Hist. and Scan Hist. tabs are. 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 >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:23:30 -0700 >From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Vuescan vs Insight: what is better about Vuescan? (was 24 bit vs more) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 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? I meant to say that Insight and Vuescan results were comparable when scanning slides and that it was easier to scan negatives with VueScan than with Insight. Of course, slides are a lot easier to scan (for me, anyway). The thing I detest the most when scanning negatives is the grain aliasing. Regards, Petru. 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, > > Frank, > > Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept > > to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. > > I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. Why, Frank? What ever your agenda, that is no excuse for juvenile behavior, or making the list your battleground for your personal issues. > It drives me nuts!...It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, My guess is because you can't take having your beliefs challenged. > He's a master troll... Frank, I'm not trolling one bit. I have better things to do. It's, of course, convenient to simply dismiss me as a troll instead of listening, as your belief is being questioned. I am simply telling you, and some others, that I believe your belief in a particular issue is errant. If you, or anyone else wants to prove me wrong, then simply provide an image that supports your position. More than likely, what's frustrating you, is that you can't... 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
Ok, Thanks. This being the case, I stand corrected and revise my comments. Those are two tabs I never looked at, used, or even thought about clicking on. My error. Given the new information, I would say that Austin needs to update his familiarity with VueScan as well since much of the discussion appears to involve Vuescan since that is what many of his fellow debaters are using. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Smith Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more The current version of Vuescan is v7.6.61. It provides for histograms of both the Preview scan and the record scan. That's what the Preview Hist. and Scan Hist. tabs are. 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] Slideshow software
As a short break in the 8-bit vs. 16-bit debate, I have a question about Slideshow Software. I'm looking for a program that will: 1. Play selected MP3 music during the slide show. 2. Allow various Fades as transitions, such as Image one fades out in "x" fractions of a second while Image two fades in in "y" fractions of a second during an overall "z" second transition. That is, image two may be fading in while image one is fading out. 3. Allow both manual and timed transition of the slides. That is, images will change every so-many seconds, but I can use the keyboard to go back (or forward) one or more slides in the show. 4. Be priced US$25-US$50. I've tried AL Slideshow Builder (http://www.al-soft.com/), but it doesn't do #2 and #3. Any suggestions. Preston Earle [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
>Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's >just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it >up!" Would that I could have such power and influence over anyone. :-) If I did have such influence and power, my comments would stop or even discourage you from name calling; but as expemplified by the last sentance in your reply, it eveidently did not. :-) I am sure that we all (including you and me) have done exactly what you accuse him of on a number of occassions in our list participation. I am afraid that this is a consitutive characteristic of online list interactions as we know it and despite all kinds of attempts has proven to be unremediable; you just have to grin ands bear those prolonged threads that bore you and fill you mailbox or stop participating in list interactions. It would seem to me that there is a less antagonistic and more civil way of telling someone that they are being overbearing, boring, or selfrighteous without resorting to name calling. Your expressed "I don't care" attitude is an exact mirror image of the attitude that you accuse Austin of having and object to so much. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Frank, > Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept > to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it up!" Don't you see what he does? He has set himself up as some sort of list cop. Nobody can say the slightest thing without his treating it like a federal case, asking for proof over the most casual statements. It drives me nuts! It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, because he trolls out excruciatingly long and boring threads that go nowhere, flooding my mailbox with the same old same old for days on end, and I notice that I'm not the only one who objects to his overbearing pettiness. He's a master troll, I don't care whether you excuse me for saying so or not. 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 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 Laurie, > Given the new information, I would say that Austin needs to update his > familiarity with VueScan as well since much of the discussion appears to > involve Vuescan since that is what many of his fellow debaters are using. You are correct that I (and apparently you as well ;-) weren't up on all the capabilities of VueScan...but...the discussion really had nothing to do with VueScan, it was specifically about making tonal moves in 8 bit vs 16 bit files. 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
You're not alone. I didn't check them until this question came up. I actually thought that Preview Hist. was a log of some kind ;-0 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Slideshow software
MS Power Point will do all that, but not for $50. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Slideshow software
I'm sorry; is that a 8-bit or 16 bit slideshow program? And is that price in hoigh bit or low bit US dollars? :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Slideshow software As a short break in the 8-bit vs. 16-bit debate, I have a question about Slideshow Software. I'm looking for a program that will: 1. Play selected MP3 music during the slide show. 2. Allow various Fades as transitions, such as Image one fades out in "x" fractions of a second while Image two fades in in "y" fractions of a second during an overall "z" second transition. That is, image two may be fading in while image one is fading out. 3. Allow both manual and timed transition of the slides. That is, images will change every so-many seconds, but I can use the keyboard to go back (or forward) one or more slides in the show. 4. Be priced US$25-US$50. I've tried AL Slideshow Builder (http://www.al-soft.com/), but it doesn't do #2 and #3. Any suggestions. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 was: RE: 24bit vs more
The big advantage to Vuescan for me is that it is far more aggressive in altering exposure times than most scanner software. This can lead to rather extended scans, but it can also get highlights out of thick negs that absolutely stump other programs. Polacolor in particular is absolutely helpless when faced with anything resembling a thick highlight. And, on a Mac at least, Polacolor's batch scanning is about as stable and reliable as a pit bull on crack. Austin Franklin wrote: > 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] FILM CLEANING
Hello my question is about cleaning film. Does anyone have any practical experience using ultrasonic cleaners for cleaning transparency film? Any recommendations about solvents, particularly versions of Naptha? I think the best system is the Lipsner Smith ultrasonic film cleaner, but it is for motion picture film and costs as much as a house. thanks in advance Thomas Robinson Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Slideshow software
;-p Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Microtek 120tf film holder loading problems
Hi There Been using my Microtek 120tf for a while, but it's developed an annoying habit of drawing the filmholders in and then immediately ejecting them back out. Has anyone else experienced this? I can't get it to do anything differently and the Microtek support is not helpful Cheers Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FILM CLEANING
Edwal makes a very adequate Anti-static film cleaner when used with a lintless cloth (which can also be purchased). I've used it for 30+ years after nearly being excused from my class at ACCD so long ago - my darkroom was in a heavy construction zone then. I've used it as a way of avoiding spotting prints when I was using a wet darkroom and now as a way of avoiding extensive use of the "clone tool" in PS. The best solution is to have a room for doing scanning that has the same cleanliness standards that a wet darkroom would have - I haven't achieved that again, yet - and then use the film cleaner as a means of picking up what little remains. You might also try adding an anti-static brush (has some radio-activity associated with it, but you get more exposure to radio- activity just living). Be aware that the dating on brush is real, and get a new one when it times out. Ultrasonic cleaners might be nice, but they need a medium to work in and the exposure to those chemicals wouldn't be the most healthy thing either (after the drain on your bank account). Expenses in the motion picture world are another universe altogether. Once a slide or negative has been cleaned with an anti-static compound, if kept in a clean place (in a sleeve) it will stay clean, requiring only a moderate pass with the brush if you wish to rescan it (in 16 bit - or higher, of course). Good luck, Brad On 18/9/03 10:25, "HPA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello my question is about cleaning film. Does anyone have any practical > experience using ultrasonic cleaners for cleaning transparency film? Any > recommendations about solvents, particularly versions of Naptha? I think the > best system is the Lipsner Smith ultrasonic film cleaner, but it is for > motion picture film and costs as much as a house. thanks in advance > > Thomas Robinson > > -- > -- > 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: FILM CLEANING
I agree with the Edwal suggestion, although in my color lab days I used a less expensive cleaner available in large quantities. We only used film cleaner to remove finger prints and deposits that couldn't be brushed or blown off. We went through a LOT of compressed air. I still blow off the glass of my flatbed scanner every time I use (and the print I'm scanning). 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, Pardon me, but as I read this, Austin has said (paraphrasing) "I don't think that 16 bit depths on three channels is ever required and here's why (insert explanation of perceptive abilities of humans and the results of mixing three channels at 8 bit depth)". Then he has said that if you believe different (again paraphrasing), "put up or shut up." If you disagree with someone and you take the affirmative position (e.g. There is a need for more bit depth) then it is up to you, and those who agree with you to show evidence - it is virtually impossible to prove a negative in a situation like this. Instead, I've seen nothing but the assertion that you "sometimes need a greater bit depth." I believe that you believe that you do, but with Austin, I am an empiricist, and the empiricist challenge is "put up or shut up!" Sly comments are the mask of one with no evidence or basis for their position, the place where charlatans, mountebanks and creationists hide from the light of day. Your comments qualify as sly digs. Your cry that Laurie has given Austin license to continue is a continuation of an approach that is based more on smoke and mirrors than on reality. The simple response would be to demonstrate your case. Laurie is much too gentle to point out that your continued failure to do so is all the license that Austin requires. Further, if you find that Laurie's response was anything other than responsible, you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with him, she suggested only that those who disagree provide evidence to support their case. Laurie tried to pour oil on troubled waters, this is not such an attempt as it is clear that your understanding is well below her level of discourse. This is intended to be a plain statement - "put up or shut up." Austin's point of view is clear and he has asked for evidence to the contrary. Either provide such evidence or SHUT UP. (And yes Henk de Jong, if the product of your kitchen is flawed, I may well expect to be brought into the kitchen - to you too, I suggest that you either provide the evidence or stop making assertions that you are unwilling to support with evidence. It gets very old.) Frank, if you are wondering, this isn't a flame, it is powder spread out and if you wish, we can begin a flame. It will probably get us both thrown off the list (and that would be appropriate). Your choice. Of course, if you want to continue this discussion, why not just present Austin with a file representing the problem you assert exists - how simple can it get? Brad Davis, Ph.D. P.S. To Laurie: If I have misrepresented you in any way, I apologize. I think that you are the apogee of intelligence here and while I've never met you, you are the only reason I stay on this list. The above response is not representative of your style or approach, but the whining is getting me down. When we are all gentle, then those who don't understand are given free reign. Or as an old Inuit proverb states, "Fear most the heedless among you." There is much heedlessness here now. On 17/9/03 22:09, "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:27 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 >> >> >> Frank, >> Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept >> to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. > > I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. > Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's > just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it > up!" Don't you see what he does? He has set himself up as some sort of > list cop. Nobody can say the slightest thing without his treating it > like a federal case, asking for proof over the most casual statements. > It drives me nuts! It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, > because he trolls out excruciatingly long and boring threads that go > nowhere, flooding my mailbox with the same old same old for days on end, > and I notice that I'm not the only one who objects to his overbearing > pettiness. He's a master troll, I don't care whether you excuse me for > saying so or not. > > 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 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
>> but granting that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the >> discussion for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to >> tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. >I think you're mistaken about that. Well, that could very well be and it would not be the first time. > The discussion is about 8 bit vs 16 bit files and tonal manipulations. >The ONLY thing I am challenging is the need >to do high bit tonal manipulations to color image files, period...nothing >more, nothing less. Yes the discussion is about that; but I think it is probably about much more which is implicit in and to the discussion being carried on. Even if that is the only thing you are challenging, I think that you have stated it much too narrowly and absolutely as a universal, while then making practical and empirical exceptions to this universal rule which in effect transforms the absolute universal into an empirical or probablistic statement. You have already granted that there is or could be situations where there is or might be a need to do high bit tonal manipulations to color images (i.e., restorations of some color images of some subject matter). I think that the import or significance of your statements is contingent on the purposes that the original is being scanned for and the uses the scan is being put to. (I could probably give illustrative examples; but I will not unless you insist). Even there, the need may not be an empirically necessary requirement (e.g., a constitutive need to work in high bit) but one of comfort and perception (e.g., a preferred need to work in high bit); however, either way it is a need none the less. One of the main ambiguities and vageries of this discussion which tends to introduce both confusion and lack of clarity is if all the references to high bit or 16-bit or more is to image files of scanner captured and produced data or to the data itself before it is saved to a file; and if the reference is to high bit data files, are the references to high bit raw lineal data files or to high bit raw adjusted data files which do not contain lineal data across the density range. A number of scanner software can output high bit lineal and non-lineal raw data TIFF image files where the lineal version tneds to be on the dark side while the non-lineal version has adjusted the gamma of the dark end of the spectrum so as to lighten it and cause the overall result to look as one might normally expect. Both tend to be referred to as high bit raw data files. I see no difference ( and I would think that others might see no difference) between establishing setpoints and tonal adjustments during the scan using the scanner driver and software vis-a-vis high bit hardware generated data and sending it (outputting it) as low bit data image files to a third party image editing appplication, a monitor display, or a printer and establishing setpoints during the scan using the scanner driver and software vis-a-vis high bit hardware generated data and sending it (outputting it) as a lineal high bit raw data image file to a third party image editiing program for tonal adjustment of the high bit data before converting to low bit. I think this is a matter of either preference or the quality of ones scanner software versus the available third party image editing applications. I do see a difference between doing tonal adjustments on an already converted data image file rather than on the high bit file (assuming the originally established setpoints are good for the purposes and uses of the scanned image at hand). First, one might be able to obtain a smoother tonal curve if you have more bit depth to work with; and second, you will have more data and possibly finer gradations to work with using high bit than using low bit. Moreover, if there is no difference where the tonal corrections or adjustments are done as long as they are done to raw high bit data before it gets converted to low bit data, then I fail to see where the disagreement between you and the others is and it does moot the debate between 16 vrs 8 bit files. However, I recognize that elsewhere you have said that you are challenging the need to do high bit tonal adjustments since there is no difference between 8 bit and 16 bit tonal manipulations, which seems to stand in contradiction to your position as I read it, and which I can only read as not being contradictory if I read it as saying that there is not a difference between 16 and 8 bit tonal manipulations with respect to the rendering of the file at the output stage of display and printing. >But there is another reason that scanner >hardware uses more bits, and it has not a single thing to do with tonal >manipulation ability. It is density range. When you scan, your image only >takes up some "part" of the overall N bits. That "part" is larger for >slides, as they have a higher density range, and lower for negatives. I understand that;
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Brad Davis wrote: > Further, if you find that Laurie's response was > anything other than responsible, you have > demonstrated a complete lack of understanding > of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with > him, she suggested only that those who disagree > provide evidence to support their case. (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] More questions about cleaning
Hello, i am having difficulty cleaning slides because of scratches. It seems that anything used to clean a Kodachrome causes small scratches. I have tried cotton wipes, tp, kimwipes, lens cleaning tissue. I never use the same wipe twice. I do exactly what the Kodak website recommends for cleaning. Still i get minute hairline scratches. So I am looking into ways to clean transparencies without any physical contact. I think the ultrasonic is the way to go. Industrial ultrasonic cleaners are very cheap at industrial surplus sales, i already have two here at home and either would work fine for cleaning trannies. So what I am asking is about is the solvent. Kodak's site recommends various types of Naptha (the actual page presents a much more complex situation) I am hoping to hear from anyone who cleans slides or trannies using any solvent, i would like to know what works or what doesn't from your personal experience. I agree that Edwall is good, i have used it for ten years. It costs about $25 a pint, which is about five times what a solvent should cost. Thomas Robinson 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
<< (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> I would bet he's actually a man :>) Howard 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
Thanks - it only requires a change in pronoun - the respect expressed (and implied) remains the same. I've been caught in a default assumption and I thank you for correcting me. It may mean something that he didn't find a necessity to do the correction - he sees what is relevant and what isn't terribly so in this context, Brad On 18/9/03 17:17, "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Davis wrote: >> Further, if you find that Laurie's response was >> anything other than responsible, you have >> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding >> of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with >> him, she suggested only that those who disagree >> provide evidence to support their case. > > (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) > > > -- > -- > 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: 8 bit versus 16
Well said, he certainly acts like an adult, a reasonable adult at that - more so than some, even me. Brad On 18/9/03 18:20, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> > > I would bet he's actually a man :>) > > Howard > > -- > -- > 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: 8 bit versus 16
Brad, Don't worry about it. You will know for the future. I thank Peter for the gentle way in which he informed you of the correction. I also appreciate your words. As for my not correcting you, I received both this post, Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/03 at 10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my response only a few minuts later. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad Davis Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Thanks - it only requires a change in pronoun - the respect expressed (and implied) remains the same. I've been caught in a default assumption and I thank you for correcting me. It may mean something that he didn't find a necessity to do the correction - he sees what is relevant and what isn't terribly so in this context, Brad On 18/9/03 17:17, "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Davis wrote: >> Further, if you find that Laurie's response was >> anything other than responsible, you have >> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding >> of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with >> him, she suggested only that those who disagree >> provide evidence to support their case. > > (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) > > > -- > -- > 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 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
Good guess Howard. :-) Thanks for betting on me being a man; you win. At my age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> I would bet he's actually a man :>) Howard 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: 8 bit versus 16
God... Don't we all! It is interesting to notice the gentle people and the not so gentle (and I unfortunately fall in the latter category too often). Would that we were all so gentle... brad On 18/9/03 20:29, "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good guess Howard. :-) Thanks for betting on me being a man; you win. At my > age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> > > I would bet he's actually a man :>) > > Howard > > > > 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] 2 vuescan questions
I have two questions about using vuescan. 1. Some people in the recent discussion on 8 vs. 16 bits have mentioned the histograms in vuescan. In my experience, the preview histogram is not very useful for what I would have thought was a primary use: setting the whitepoint and blackpoint. For example, if I adjust these points so that the histogram stretches almost all the way across the graph, I find that the scan image has black in it, as indicated by turning on the switches to show black and white areas. In short, the preview histogram looks right, but the scan doesn't; and I haven't found empirically a way of reliably fudging the blackpoint adjustment. The default blackpoint is zero, I believe (I'm not at the machine that has Vuescan); but using it seems to leave a lot of "space" on the left, at least according to the histogram. This occurs on slides that are properly exposed, both visually and according to the histogram (i.e., no unintended areas of black or blown-out highlights. Am I doing something wrong? Should I just go with the defaults? 2. I occasionally scan slides (using a Nikon IV-D) that have a good deal of orange and colors close to it, expecially orangey rust. I haven't found a way of setting the options in Vuescan to produce a scan that matches the slide closely. The problem seems to exist only when there are large areas of such color. Any suggestions? Jim Gaa Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan profiles
On 09/17/03 8:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How does the color calibration in VS work? > > The scanner profiles are generated by Ed. The film profiles are from the > Kodak PhotoCD profile set ie. the profiles which the Kodak scanner uses > when making PhotoCDs. That's why (sadly) there's no profiles for the new > Fuji films. :( > > Using a target would be fine for making a scanner profile, but only for > the type of film used by the maker of the target. I think the Kodak target > is Ektachrome slide film? > > Rob > > PS My knowledge of Vuescan is out of date - I noticed elsewhere in the most > recent digest there was mention of ICC profiles. What I've said above was > true for older versions of Vuescan, but only Ed would be able to say what > the current situation was. Recent versions of Vuescan contain provisions for building custom ICC scanner profiles and custom ICC film profiles, using IT8 reference targets. This is mentioned in the User's Guide (although the explanation is terse, and may not be adequate for people unfamiliar with how these profiles are built and used): http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc.htm Good quality IT8 targets (on various films) can be purchased from Wolf Faust: http://www.targets.coloraid.de/ You can still choose to use Vuescan's built-in profiles, but the set of films is out of date and incomplete. Furthermore, Vuescan is now capable of loading and using custom ICC monitor profiles. If your monitor is profiled (with Colorvision Spyder or equivalent), Vuescan's displays will be about as accurate as Photoshop's. There is also a provision for building custom printer profiles, although some people are reporting disappointing results from this (I have not tried it). -- 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
