[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote: Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as webmasters to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are for web or previewing. With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way? Thanks! Ed Verkaik Well, given your once constraint the simple answer is . . . USM treatment should be the last thing you do before you save your otherwise-completely-edited file to whatever format (presumably JPEG for online display) you use. As for the best one-step USM process: Fred Miranda's IS action for PS is the best easy (i.e., one-step) USM utility that I'm aware of. And it's reasonably priced. And if you decide to buy it, please use my site's link to get it, as then I'll receive a modest kickback from Fred. (All of this money goes directly back into the maintenance of my site.) You could find that link here: http://tristanjohn.com/inkstwo.htm My first page was devoted to a simple comparison test of the FM IS action versus the one-shot USM utility offered by Picture Window Pro. I'm not trying to pick on the latter, but it will give you a good idea of the difference between USM utilities (the majority) which use a shotgun approach as opposed to USM techniques which look rather only (or at least primarily) to the _edges_ of the target image. You can find that comparison here: http://tristanjohn.com/USMtest.htm Happy sharpening! Tris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
If I understand what you are saying, I think that I cannot agree with your explanation. Your analogy appears to be confounding halftone dots with halftone cells. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that either translate one-to-one into pixels or into samples. Also I believe that if your analogy was correct, the 2000 dpi would represent a halftone cell consisting of two dots while the 4000dpi would be a halftone cell with 4 dots, such that there would be 2000 cells per inch (or 4000 halftone dots per inch) versus 4000 cells per inch (or 16000 halftone cells per inch). First, technically there is a difference between dpi which is usually used in reference to resolution in terms of halftone dots or cells per line per inch ( or lpi -lines per inch in printing press terms) on a printed page versus ppi which is used with regards to pixels which typically refer to resolutions in terms of picture elements in a monitor display versus spi or samples per inch which refers to resolutions in terms of the number of samples captured by a capture device such as a scanner or digital camera from the original subject. Often and usually wrongly, these measures and terms are used interchangabley as if they were identical or equivalent to one another. Second, the key factor in determining the quality and equivalance of scanner resolutions is the difference between the native optical resolution of the scanner (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch) and interpolated resolutions or software generated resolutions of the scanner (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch). The former comprises the actual scanner resolution as opposed to some mathematically generated derivative of the actual resolution. Third, with respect to output resolutions and the original question, the quality of a scanner and its output is as much determined by the bit depth of the scanner ( i.e., the dynamic range of tone that the scanner can capture and recognize and the capacity of the scanner to recognize tonal distinctions within that dynamic range and discern or differentiate those distinctions from noise) and the quality of the scanners design, sensors, and hardware componets as by the optical resolution if it capable of capturing and out putting at. Thus, the stated resolution differences between scanners may be irrelvant in terms of the quality of the output. Furthermore, the amount of resolution needed to do a quality capture and output will depend on the size and type of original that is being scanned as well as the pruposes to which the scan is being used. For example, one does not need as much resolution for reflective originals as for transmissive originals or for large originals as opposed to small originals. To use a scanner to scan an 8x10 sheet of film at 4000spi is overkill unless, for instance, one is going to enlarge the captured image to billboard size or crop out and enlarge into a 16x20 inch image only the head of one person in a large group shot, holding all other scanner spec equal. Fourth, the size of the output resolution, holding other variable constant, becomes important when one is scanning small 35mm originals which will be enlarged 5 or more times full frame upon printing or which will be cropped and enlarged to a size of 5 or more times the size of the 35mm original full frame. Here, you want an optical resolution high enough so that you can enlarge the image size which will effectively reduce the resolution and wind up with an optical resolution of 200 - 300 units (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch) without resorting to interpolation. Thus, 4000 spi scanner will allow one to enlarge the scanned frame larger without resorting to interpolation (e.g., resampling upward) than would be the case for a 2000 spi, assuming both scanners resolutions are optical resolutions. This would be true for originals whatever their size; but more than 2000 spi may not be needed to scan for instance a medium format frame and 1200spi may not be needed to scan a 4x5 or larger film frame. This is also the case for reflective originals scanned on flatbeds with respect to optimum resolutions in relation to final image sizes; but with respect to quality of scans, anything more than 600-1200 spi for outputs 1-3 times the size of the original is usually unnecessary since the dynamic range of most reflected originals is much narrower than for transmissive originals and details tend to be more blocked up on the extreme ends of the histogram for reflective originals than for transmissive originals. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:37 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, you wrote: I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? Or does it simply mean the
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) If your remarks are based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I was only extrapolating from the orgianal statement of the analogy by the preious poster using their language and argument structure. If you are referrign to other elements in my comentary, please go on and tell me more. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Laurie, Also I believe that if your analogy was correct, the 2000 dpi would represent a halftone cell consisting of two dots while the 4000dpi would be a halftone cell with 4 dots, such that there would be 2000 cells per inch (or 4000 halftone dots per inch) versus 4000 cells per inch (or 16000 halftone cells per inch). I must apologize up front for not reading the whole thread, but I just wanted to point out that perhaps where you said two dots, you actually meant 2x2 dots, or 4 dots, and where you said 4 dots, you actually meant 4x4 dots, or 16 dots...while you seem to be showing this relationship (halftone cells are typically two dimensional) with your per inch statement. Sorry for butting in, carry on ;-) Regards, Austin -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Hi Laurie, Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) You are too kind ;-) If your remarks are based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I was only extrapolating from the original statement of the analogy by the previous poster using their language and argument structure. Yes, I am referring only to what I quoted. If you are referring to other elements in my commentary, please go on and tell me more. Perhaps I should read your post in it's entirety. I may learn something ;-) 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: Nikon Color Management
Ed-- I'm pretty sure you can create a simple Photoshop action for this kind of batch processing. --Bill At 2:12 PM -0700 4/21/04, Ed Lusby wrote: Bob, I have thousands of slides to scan, archive, and create slideshows. Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. ... If the the profiles could be converted in Photoshop in a batch mode, that would be a viable alternative for me. Is that possible? -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com == Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
In case you didn't know... You can speed up VS appreciably by avoiding the need for the scanner to make a second pass after the preview scan. Set preview to the target resolution (eg 4000ppi), then set 'scan from preview'. When you hit 'scan', VS then processes from memory rather than scanning the image a second time. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Thanks for the tip, Tony. Sounds like a great idea. However, vuescan doesn't seem to support this work flow well on the LS5000, crashing almost all the time. I did manage to get a couple of scans done this way. You seem to save about 1' per scan, which is great, but there was a significant color shift which would have to be corrected. No big deal, it could save me a lot of time, if Ed gets this bug fixed. And Bill, I think you are right, such conversion to profile should be automated by the action pallete in PS. I tried to convert a raw file my profile in PS, but the color was way off, colder instead of warmer. I opened the file in PS, with color management OFF, and converted to the profile. I assume that's what you are supposed to do. If I did this right, I guess it means that Vuescan also makes proprietary ICC profiles. Ed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Mail-archive.com test
The Archive at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] has not been working properly lately, with this list. This is a test of a fix by the owners. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Bill Fernandez wrote: I made using a Kodachrome IT8 target and the ICC Scan software from profilecity.com I haven't heard of this software. It's not clear from the site (now http://www.chromix.com/profilecity) whether the free software download can work with 3rd party targets. It would be useful if it does as I already have the Ektachrome/Sensia targets from Wolf Faust. Any comments anyone? Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon Color Management
I recently obtained the Nikon LS5000 scanner and began to try to obtain a profile for Kodachrome scans. The Nikon Scan 4.0 software has 4 profiles, one specifically for Kodachrome. Probably to no surprise to anyone on this list, it doesn't work very well. Reds and greens are dull, scenes with early morning sun are dull, some slides are very flat, etc. At this point I tried Vuescan which gave me much better results. A vuescan IT8 generated profile was slightly better than the builtin Vuescan profile. Skin tones were a bit warm, however with both Vuescan profiles. However, the scans were slower in Vuescan (2.4'/slide vs. Nikonscan's 1.7'/slide, using the slide feeder, dust removal, and color processing). Also, Vuescan is a little querky; the logfile quit working, and sometimes just doesn't work without restarting it. This is an introduction to my question. Nikonscan 4 doesn't allow custom profiles to be used, much to my dismay. I would like to use Nikonscan because of the greater speed and perhaps better fine tuning controls. I thought I could trick Nikonscan by renaming my vuescan profile to the same name as the profile used by Nikonscan. Of course, Nikon wouldn't tell me the name/location of their profiles, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. The location is Program Files/Common Files/Nikon/profiles for WinXP. The kodachrome profile is, I believe: NKLS5000_K.icm The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw rookie, I'm not sure of the difference, if any between icm and icc profiles. One website I found said they were the same except for extension name, and that all profiles should be icc. I noticed however, that icm profiles are usually 200KB or more, while icc profiles are only 1-4KB. So my question is, is there an inherent difference in icc and icm profiles? I tried to rename my vuescan profile to Nikon's profile name and pasting it into the Nikon profile directory. Nikonscan functioned, but the resulting output was grossly overexposed. Since the output changed, the above profile must be the Kodachrome profile used by Nikonscan. However, since the scan didn't work as it did in Vuescan, does this mean there is something different about Nikon's profile format compared to the ICC standard? Or is there some other explanation? If Nikon has a proprietary ICC format it would explain why they wouldn't give me any information about their profiles, and it would explain why Nikonscan doesn't allow custom profiles, because they would be incompatible. Ed Lusby Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Hi Ed-- I scan Kodachrome with a Nikon 4000, and am running NIkonScan 3.x on MacOS X, so my experiences may or not help you, but here goes: (1) I found that I get greater dynamic range and more accurate color by scanning with Nikon color management turned off, generating a raw scan, opening it in Photoshop, and APPLYING a custom profile I made using a Kodachrome IT8 target and the ICC Scan software from profilecity.com. (2) My understanding is that ICC/ICM profiles with small file sizes are usually contain only a few matrices, while the ones with large file sizes usually contain large lookup tables. The larger ones are more precise. See the comments Joseph Holmes makes about his Ektaspace profiles on his website, www.josephholmes.com. (3) I'm under the impression that you can usually convert profiles back and forth between ICC and ICM, but I don't know what's involved. I bet the info is somewhere on the web. (4) My impression, left over from some early fooling around with the profiles that came with my Nikon 4000, is that the Nikon profiles are special in some way and cannot be interchanged freely with other profiles. In particular, I think I remember trying to rename my custom Kodachrome profile with same name as Nikon's Kodachrome profile, and substituting the former for the latter, and it didn't work. Hope some of this turns out to be useful. --Bill At 10:25 AM -0700 4/21/04, Ed Lusby wrote: I recently obtained the Nikon LS5000 scanner and began to try to obtain a profile for Kodachrome scans. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com == Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Ed, The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw rookie, I'm ICC stands for Internation Color Consortium, ICM doesn't stand for anything, the M is just for module I guess, without any correlation to the IC. Files with these extensions are both ICC profiles. I'd prefer .icc as the extension, but .icm is more common. I think the colour management supplied with Windows 98 upwards uses .icm as the extension, which sort of establishes .icm as the de-facto standard. all profiles should be icc. I noticed however, that icm profiles are usually 200KB or more, while icc profiles are only 1-4KB. So my question ICC profiles can vary greatly in size, depending on how many of the features are used, how deep the look-up tables are, etc. is, is there an inherent difference in icc and icm profiles? I tried to No. rename my vuescan profile to Nikon's profile name and pasting it into the Nikon profile directory. Nikonscan functioned, but the resulting output No big surprise. The ICC profile format is very generic, and manufacturers often use it only as a basis for their own software. Given that, I don't expect Nikonscan to follow the specifications of the ICC, they just hacked together a driver that works with their profiles. there some other explanation? If Nikon has a proprietary ICC format it would explain why they wouldn't give me any information about their profiles, and it would explain why Nikonscan doesn't allow custom profiles, because they would be incompatible. I think they only support a small subset of ICC profiles, and the ones created by VueScan (and many other programs) are not among them. Hope this helps, Andras Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon Color Management
I believe that ICM does refer to the the color management module that the operating system uses for its system level color management, which in the case of Windows systems, I believe, is the Kodak module that uses the Kodak color management engine as opposed to Mac systems which use Colorsync. The difference in size between .icc and .icm as well as within these two file formats is due to the type of process they use to translate the color figures into color spaces. Smaller profiles use a method that assigns a matrix and number identified points correspondint to the device independent color mode that they used as an intermediary color space while the larger profiles usa a method that relies on actual lookup tables. The difference only tends to effect the size of the profile file and not the outcomes. there some other explanation? A possibility in addition to the already mentioned ones is that the fact that Nikon uses LEDs for capture sensors rather than the traditions type of capture sensor may result in some incompatibilities between how traditional .icc profile work when used in traditional scanners and how they work with Nikon scanners so as to require the addition of additional information in the profiles which is specific to Nikon's processing of capture data and its rendering. (just speculation). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw rookie, I'm ICC stands for Internation Color Consortium, ICM doesn't stand for anything, the M is just for module I guess, without any correlation to the IC. Files with these extensions are both ICC profiles. I'd prefer .icc as the extension, but .icm is more common. I think the colour management supplied with Windows 98 upwards uses .icm as the extension, which sort of establishes .icm as the de-facto standard. all profiles should be icc. I noticed however, that icm profiles are usually 200KB or more, while icc profiles are only 1-4KB. So my question ICC profiles can vary greatly in size, depending on how many of the features are used, how deep the look-up tables are, etc. is, is there an inherent difference in icc and icm profiles? I tried to No. rename my vuescan profile to Nikon's profile name and pasting it into the Nikon profile directory. Nikonscan functioned, but the resulting output No big surprise. The ICC profile format is very generic, and manufacturers often use it only as a basis for their own software. Given that, I don't expect Nikonscan to follow the specifications of the ICC, they just hacked together a driver that works with their profiles. there some other explanation? If Nikon has a proprietary ICC format it would explain why they wouldn't give me any information about their profiles, and it would explain why Nikonscan doesn't allow custom profiles, because they would be incompatible. I think they only support a small subset of ICC profiles, and the ones created by VueScan (and many other programs) are not among them. Hope this helps, Andras --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Thanks for the comments, Bill. Your experiences seem to be identical to mine. I'm a little dismayed that Nikon and others are inventing their own proprietary color management systems. Kind of defeats the original purpose of the ICC, as I understand it. Ed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Ed, Surely you can turn the color management off in NikonScan, scan your slide or neg into PS, and then assign whatever custom profile you like to the scan and convert that to your working space? With NkScan 3, I regularly did this to get my scan in working spaces other than those selectable in NkScan. I didn't use a custom profile but just assigned the Nikon scanner profile and then converted to my chosen working space. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Ed Lusby [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an introduction to my question. Nikonscan 4 doesn't allow custom profiles to be used, much to my dismay. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Bob, I have thousands of slides to scan, archive, and create slideshows. Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. Vuescan is working extremely well. After a little tweaking this morning, even skin tones are dead on. If the the profiles could be converted in Photoshop in a batch mode, that would be a viable alternative for me. Is that possible? Ed At 01:18 PM 4/21/2004, you wrote: Ed, Surely you can turn the color management off in NikonScan, scan your slide or neg into PS, and then assign whatever custom profile you like to the scan and convert that to your working space? With NkScan 3, I regularly did this to get my scan in working spaces other than those selectable in NkScan. I didn't use a custom profile but just assigned the Nikon scanner profile and then converted to my chosen working space. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Ed Lusby [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an introduction to my question. Nikonscan 4 doesn't allow custom profiles to be used, much to my dismay. 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: Nikon Color Management
Ed Lusby wrote: Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. Vuescan is working extremely well. In case you didn't know... You can speed up VS appreciably by avoiding the need for the scanner to make a second pass after the preview scan. Set preview to the target resolution (eg 4000ppi), then set 'scan from preview'. When you hit 'scan', VS then processes from memory rather than scanning the image a second time. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: cleaning a dusty Nikon LS4000
Howdy-- There must be an awful lot of dust inside your refurbished scanner if it gets on the film when you scan! I'd recommend against just randomly spraying compressed air into the scanner, but it should be fairly easy to remove the outer casing of the scanner, and that should be enough to access the areas that are close enough to the film plane that dust can get onto your film. Then I expect you could use compressed air to blow dust off the dusty parts, while keeping it from blowing down towards the CCD, etc. --Bill At 1:39 AM + 4/15/04, Unspecified wrote: I got a refurbished LS4000 via Nikon USA after my initial one died at 13 months. The refurbished model been under a dust cover since I got it. The scanning operations seem fine on this one, but it coats every negative with EXTENSIVE dust. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com == Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: cleaning a dusty Nikon LS4000
Hi Paul, I came across a great tutorial for cleaning the new LS-5000 here: http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html It comes complete with a lot of photos to guide you. It also says the method works on a 4000. Ed Lusby Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] cleaning a dusty Nikon LS4000
I got a refurbished LS4000 via Nikon USA after my initial one died at 13 months. The refurbished model been under a dust cover since I got it. The scanning operations seem fine on this one, but it coats every negative with EXTENSIVE dust. Much more than the first model ever did. I've cleaned the holders that you insert, but how can I safely clean inside the unit? I'm nervous about taking it apart, and was wondering if blowing pressurized air inside would help or damage the equipment. I'd like to avoid a costly, potential unhelpful repair experience at Nikon - Torrance based on my past experience with them. Anyone with successful experience at cleaning an LS4000? Thanks Paul Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: cleaning a dusty Nikon LS4000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I got a refurbished LS4000 via Nikon USA after my initial one died at 13 months. The refurbished model been under a dust cover since I got it. The scanning operations seem fine on this one, but it coats every negative with EXTENSIVE dust. Much more than the first model ever did. I've cleaned the holders that you insert, but how can I safely clean inside the unit? I'm nervous about taking it apart, and was wondering if blowing pressurized air inside would help or damage the equipment. I'd like to avoid a costly, potential unhelpful repair experience at Nikon - Torrance based on my past experience with them. Anyone with successful experience at cleaning an LS4000? I've completely dismantled my LS-2000 and cleaned the guts. I don't know if there are significant differences, but I think they're built in basically the same way. The only difficulty was that I had to unplug lots of things from the circuit board to get it apart, so I had to be careful to remember what went where. Routine stuff, not particularly fragile compared to any other electronic gear. I found that the mirrors and condenser were filthy, and the lead screw had enough accumulated crud on it that the wimpy stepper motor couldn't push past it, but I had never had any problem with the thing barfing dust all over the film. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Third-party repair options for Polaroid SS 4000?
Hello all -- I have a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (SCSI) with a defective lamp and I was quoted a $125 fee just to get an estimate and a minimum $400 fee for any repair. Then the rep apparently forgot to fax the work order as promised and ignored an online query quoting the RMA number. This does not strike me as serious service. Also, I was surprised that Microtek quotes a much lower estimate fee for its comparable model with shared parts. It seems to me I could buy a secondhand SS 4000 for the minimum repair fee or buy a more recent model from a competitor for the price quoted for a trade-up to a SS 4000 plus (over $700). Is there any way third-party repair can be procured? Phil Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Scanning 35mm film for maximum quality tutorial.
Hello, i have put up a new tutorial about scanning 35mm negative and Kodachrome slides for maximum quality using desktop slide scanners. There is some wet treatment with ultrasonic cleaning. I would appreciate any comments about these techniques, or suggestions for improvement. thanks http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html -- Thomas Robinson 441 NE Jarrett St. Portland OR 97211-3126 USA 503-460-0415 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Vuescan Calibration Shortcut
Why did Ctrl+C as a shortcut for Scanner - Calibrate get dropped out of Vuescan? Can we have it back please, Ed? - Stewart Skelt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspeed.com.au/sgskelt - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Panther (10.3) + VueScan + SS4000 +Linotype ELS-3000
Anybody using VueScan with the SS4000 and the Linotype ELS-3000 on a Mac with Panther 10.3? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Panther (10.3) + VueScan + SS4000 +Linotype ELS-3000
At 10:29 AM -0600 4/1/04, michael wrote: Anybody using VueScan with the SS4000 and the Linotype ELS-3000 on a Mac with Panther 10.3? I have had good results using VueScan 7.6.78 on OS 10.3.3 with a Polaroid SS4000. Regards, Roger Smith Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
The issue with multiple USB scanners on XP is still a vexing one for me. See KB 324756 for details. Going on 2 years, and no peep of a fix. SP1 did not fix it, BTW. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Unavailable shortly Austin Franklin wrote: Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can... Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what technical area). Regards, Austin I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;-) I am under some fairly rigid NDAs. Let me just put it this way, if there is a scanner or printer related issue involving MS operating systems (installation, drivers, interfacing, color management, etc) which you would like to see addressed by their coders and designers, you might want to send it my way in the next 48 hours or so. 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: Unavailable shortly
Austin Franklin wrote: Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can... Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what technical area). Regards, Austin I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;-) I am under some fairly rigid NDAs. Let me just put it this way, if there is a scanner or printer related issue involving MS operating systems (installation, drivers, interfacing, color management, etc) which you would like to see addressed by their coders and designers, you might want to send it my way in the next 48 hours or so. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
Yes! dICE is the culprit. I'd tried most settings before posting but never turned off the ICE because the film is rather dirty and scrathed. As for David's suggestions, it is scanned with the rotation glass holder, and I pref er the setting as color neg in RGB mode. Thanks to Lau rie, David, and Arthur. JM Shen Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
You cannot use dICE on silver halide based films. The silver is opaque to IR light so it ends up trying to subtract your whole image, which it assumes is dirt or surface damage. Color films, of negative or positive types, chromagenic black and white, have almost all silver left in them after they are processed so that problem is resolved. Some Kodachrome dyes are slightly opaque to IR light also, and that can also could problems with certain vintages of Kodachrome slides when scanning. Art Youheng wrote: Hi List: I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to cope with this? thank you! Thanks, JM Shen Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Unavailable shortly
I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon my return. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Understanding dpi
Laurie Solomon wrote: I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right now I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size? Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi. Thanks, Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. Out of curiosity, why? Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable for getting email while traveling. 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: Understanding dpi
Image quality is a multi-faceted subjective thing that cannot be measured in quantitative terms which is why it is never refered to on spec sheets. Obviously a optical 4000spi scanner will be sharper and have higher resoution than a scanner that is capable of only optical resolutions of less than 4000 spi, all other things being kept equal and constant; but resolution and sharpness is only one aspect of quality with respect to the scanner's capture ability. However, sharpness and resolution per se are not really all that important if one is outputting to the web or to prints that are small wallet and snapshot size since the size and means of electronic presentation often will mask any lack of sharpness and resolution and provide the appearance of being sharper and having more resolution than it objectively has. Part of the reason 35mm film scanners have increased in their optical resolution capabilities is because the size of the 35mm film frame is typically enlarged in size significantly as compared to medium and large format films as well as most reflective printed materials that are scanned on flatbeds. By being able to scan at optical resolutions of 4000 spi, the capture can be resized to about 8 times its original size and still maintain an acceptible optical resolution without requiring any interpolation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right now I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size? Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi. Thanks, Bill -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Make sure that they pay for the fat ylu chew; they can afford it. Not a feature that I think you should ask them to creat but a suggestion that you should suggest that they might want to monitor and participate in this list if they do not already so as to facilitate communicatins between users and themselves. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon my return. Art -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Unavailable shortly
Hi Austin, Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed they don't record passwords, etc). My ISP charges roaming fees on dial up outside of the calling area, so this is a nice feature. I still will not be able to respond to most requests for information and advice during much of that time, because I simply won't have the time, but mail2web appears to be a nice way to keep in touch. I wonder what would happen if my wife is logging on at home at the same time I am trying to get my mail via mail2web? Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can (and yes, Laurie, they are paying for the fat, and the place to chew it ;-)) and if I wasn't allergic to sulfites, I'm sure they'd be covering the liquid entertainment too. Some of that time will be spent in Vancouver visiting friends before and after the Redmond junket ;-) But MS needs an occasional write-off, I suppose, and I can't think of a nicer guy to use it on ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Hi Art, I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. Out of curiosity, why? Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable for getting email while traveling. 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: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed they don't record passwords, etc). I have not had any problem what so ever with them (mail2web.com). I do suggest using the secure login, and if you can't get in using their standard login, the advanced has always worked for me. It's fantastic at airports, at clients etc., anywhere you can get a browser, you can get your email. Also, a number of people I know use it to de-spam their inbox, prior to downloading their email to their email program. I wonder what would happen if my wife is logging on at home at the same time I am trying to get my mail via mail2web? If you have a different email account, not a thing. Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can... Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what technical area). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
Hi List: I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to cope with this? thank you! Thanks, JM Shen Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to cope with this? thank you! The first thing to do is to _NOT_ use ICE. The next thing to try is setting the exposure manually. Turn off autoexposure before scan (somewhere in preferences) and then set the analog gain. Use the crop tool to crop out a small section of the frame to make testing faster. You can also try scanning it as a color negative or as a color positive, and picking whichever of those looks better. 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: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
I am not sure about this, but it is quite possible that this is a result of using LED based scanners, such as the Nikon, on silver halide films; it also might be a side effect of trying to use digital ICE silver halide films - if you happen to have this feature turned on. As I said, I am speculating. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi List: I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to cope with this? thank you! Thanks, JM Shen -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as webmasters to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are for web or previewing. With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way? Thanks! Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or something happening elsewhere. I don't need everyone to reply, so if a few people indicate either that they did or did not receive a duplicate, unless your experience was different from those posted, it isn't necessary for you to reply publicly. Thanks Art Arthur Entlich wrote: What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, cut Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
I have my scanner currently set to not do any software sharpening at all. It is adjustable within its software driver. I prefer having control over it in Photoshop, which appears to be more sophisticated. The same with my little digital camera. I have it saving the images (which are jpegged) unsharpened. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning? Stan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Well, if you insist then the answer is no. But I could have, if you allowed me to ;-) to make an argument otherwise. In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. However, you're the ones with the images, you know the application, and you can best test the results to see if the benefits justify the time and energy. Art Ed Verkaik wrote: Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Honestly, Ed, I would make up a few examples both unsharpened and sharpened to different degrees and ask someone who you trust for an opinion. I almost always use *some* USM even on softer edged subjects because it changes the contrast ratios a bit, and defines some edges where appropriate. But it is somewhat subjective. Even with skies, I find USM makes them slightly more dramatic. What size are you going to be printing at? One thing I almost always do is if I know I will be heavily jpegging an image, I pre-USM oversharpen. This is based upon my personal taste and experience, not any specific theory. I just find jpegging softens edges, and the image looks better after jpegging if the image has been oversharped slightly beforehand. I find doing it after jpegging tends to over emphasize jpeg artifacts. It may be, however, that the image file ends up larger doing what I suggest. Art Ed Verkaik wrote: From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Well, I did answer it ;-) And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-) Art Laurie Solomon wrote: I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
From: Arthur Entlich I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or something happening elsewhere. I don't need everyone to reply, so if a few people indicate either that they did or did not receive a duplicate, unless your experience was different from those posted, it isn't necessary for you to reply publicly. I only saw the one. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[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: another Sharpening question
In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. Seems to be true for color, and for scanners that scan BW as RGB...since they are using RGB filters, which are typically (more so the red, then the blue) the cause of smear (crosstalk) and bloom (saturation)...which fuzzes the image data...which is one of the reasons to sharpen. For the Leafscan (or any scanner capable of this, but I don't know any other) in monochrome mode (meaning, it scans using a single neutral density filter, instead of using any RGB filters), I haven't had any need to sharpen. So, it's not just that it's a CCD sensor, but a CCD sensor with color filters that exacerbate smear and bloom. I've also found that the green channel needs little to no sharpening if used as the predominant values for grayscale conversion. Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? 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: another Sharpening question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic principal that was used with s-video and super 8mm video. hey increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when pushed. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Yes you did Art. the role reversal was refreashing. Apparently the posts pasted each other like ships in the night. I may have written my response the same time as you wrote yours; but for some reason mine took longer to get on the list. By the way, I received this post the same time as I received the one in which you responded to the original post ( e.g., on 3/25/04). If I had read your response before writing mine, I wouldn't have responded sinc yours is much more complete. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I did answer it ;-) And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-) Art Laurie Solomon wrote: I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Art, While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a misunderstanding. A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. This might more accurrately be states as ...then only sharpen the L or Luminescence channel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic principal that was used with s-video and super 8mm video. hey increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when pushed. Art -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Ëd, I can appreciate your requesting a third fresh opinion and am not chastising you for doing so. My response is based on the fact that clouds, as you suggest, typically are without sharp edges (blurry and fuzzy); but there are some types of clouds and some types of lighting conditions which result in clouds with sharp edges and gradations of corlor or light to dark areas. Given the limitations of scanner and camera design, the scanner or camera will contribute to some decreases in apparent sharpness in general. Those images with soft fuzzy and blurry edges and tonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds themselves or the lighting conditions may not be negatively effected by being left without any sharpening, while those with sharp edges andtonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds and lighting conditions might benefit from sharpening to counter the softening effect fo the scanner and /or camera. Having said that, I do not see how a very mild degree of overall sharpening would be harmful in the former case; but it is unnecessary I would think. Unfortunately there is no typical sky to imagine; there are typical stormy skys, clear skys, hazy skys, skys at sunset, skys at sunrise, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Ed Verkaik -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Paul, I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as contrasted to localized in the sense that one selects the different elements and selections in the image that oe would want enhanced, leaving the unselected alone. In that sense, it is almost like using the contrast adjustment in Photoshop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ed Verkaik Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves should work fine. But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a misunderstanding. A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. This might more accurrately be states as ...then only sharpen the L or Luminescence channel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic principal that was used with s-video and super 8mm video. hey increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when pushed. Art -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. Bruce Fraser wrote an article on this three-step sharpening workflow for Creativepro. In the first stage he employs an interesting use of layer blending options to limit the extremes in capture sharpening. www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html?cprose=4-44 Bob Shomler www.shomler.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Understanding dpi
I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger image than the 2000 dpi model? Thanks for clearing this up, Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Laurie Solomon said the following on 3/25/2004 11:29 AM: Paul, I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as contrasted to localized in the sense that one selects the different elements and selections in the image that oe would want enhanced, leaving the unselected alone. In that sense, it is almost like using the contrast adjustment in Photoshop. ... It actually works pretty well. Try a radius of about 65 or so, amount of 30 and threshold of 1. Paint Shop Pro has a built in function they call clarify that appears to do just about the same thing. The visual effect is more subtle than the contrast adjustment. Almost like cleaning your lens. Try it. You may like it. -- Clive http://clive.moss.net Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Better is a relative term. Generally higher dpi (technically it should be spi or samples per inch and not either dpi, dots per inch, or ppi, pixels per inch) will produce a higher resolution and sharper image than lower amounts of samples per inch. One has to be careful in making comparisons about two main things. First, there is the meaning and accurracy of the specs which the manufacturer gives for their units since different manufacturers use different measurments and critera without making it clear exactly what they are using. And secondly, there is the issue of whether one is using optical resolutions or interpolated resolutions, wherein optical resolutions are th more significant and reliable resolutions when compared to interpolated resolutions. Thus, a 300 spi optical scan may be better than a 600 spi interpolated scan. 1600 X 2400 pixels designates an output size in pixels not a resolution. Resolutions are always stated in terms of x per inch. I realize that Microsoft and others call the moniotr display sizes such as 1600 x 2400 display resolutions but they reallyu are talking about the display size not the reolution per se. The only time the resolution related to display size is when the display is on a monitor as opposed to a print, where the same resolution can produce different sized monitor display images depending on the size of the monitor and the size of the monitor disply it is capable of in terms of pixels. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger image than the 2000 dpi model? Thanks for clearing this up, Bill -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Bob, That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. Bruce Fraser wrote an article on this three-step sharpening workflow for Creativepro. In the first stage he employs an interesting use of layer blending options to limit the extremes in capture sharpening. www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html?cprose=4-44 Bob Shomler www.shomler.com -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
That technique of individual channel sharpening is in an edition of the Dan Margulis Professional Photoshop book. He advocates sharpening the weakest color channel in certain situations such as facial portraits. It's a very interesting discussion and he gives examples. One-channel sharpening can help avoid introducing sharpening artifacts into blue sky areas. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin 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: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
The use of edge sharpening is also sold as an action called Ultrasharpen at www.ultrasharpen.com . Previous versions used the find edges though the latest one uses glowing edges and two levels of simultaneous sharpening...or something like that. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt Bob, That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener. Bruce Fraser wrote an article on this three-step sharpening workflow for Creativepro. In the first stage he employs an interesting use of layer blending options to limit the extremes in capture sharpening. www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html?cprose=4-44 Bob Shomler www.shomler.com -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 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: Understanding dpi
Most color film scanners use a CCD chip which has a series of three lines across it each with a color filter over it, Red, Green or Blue, which each are made up of a series of sensors. (Nikon uses a slightly different method, but I don't want to confuse things). That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide. That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would be 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels. The film or sensor stage is moved one pixel width per scan cycle until 6000 cycles (for a 1.5 long film frame) are achieved. The image is actually projected onto the CCD sensor, so the sensor's length might be larger or smaller than the film dimensions. If the exact same sensor was used in a medium format film scanner, which had, say a 2 wide film frame, that would be scanned at 2000 ppi, since the same number of sensors would be reading information projected on it from a film frame twice as wide. I have simplified this process. But yes, the file size grows 4x if the scanner resolution is doubles, assuming the same bit depth capture is used. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger image than the 2000 dpi model? Thanks for clearing this up, Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Art, That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide. That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would be 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels. You are correct for a magnification of 1:1, but not all scanners are 1:1. If the exact same sensor was used in a medium format film scanner, which had, say a 2 wide film frame, that would be scanned at 2000 ppi, since the same number of sensors would be reading information projected on it from a film frame twice as wide. As a note, some MF scanners do scan 1:1, for all film formats. I believe *most* 35mm only scanners use a 1 wide sensor. Most MF scanners use a 2.25 (6cm) wide sensor. The spec sheet for a particular scanner should show that information. Having multiple magnifications requires a couple of moving stages, and it's typically more economical (these days) and accurate to simply fix these stages, and scan everything at the same resolution. The quick version of SPI/PPI/DPI is scans are done in samples per inch, and the resultant image data is pixels. Pixels per inch get sent to the printer, which converts the pixels to dots, and prints dots per inch... This isn't a correction to what you said, just, I believe, a simplification. 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: Understanding dpi
Art, I really am not trying to pick on you (ok, yes I am); scanners techically measure resolution in terms of samples per inch or spi. Thus, Your correction below is wrong. That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution It is really 4000 spi and not ppi. But yes, the file size grows 4x if the scanner resolution is doubles, assuming the same bit depth capture is used. I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most color film scanners use a CCD chip which has a series of three lines across it each with a color filter over it, Red, Green or Blue, which each are made up of a series of sensors. (Nikon uses a slightly different method, but I don't want to confuse things). That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide. That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would be 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels. The film or sensor stage is moved one pixel width per scan cycle until 6000 cycles (for a 1.5 long film frame) are achieved. The image is actually projected onto the CCD sensor, so the sensor's length might be larger or smaller than the film dimensions. If the exact same sensor was used in a medium format film scanner, which had, say a 2 wide film frame, that would be scanned at 2000 ppi, since the same number of sensors would be reading information projected on it from a film frame twice as wide. I have simplified this process. But yes, the file size grows 4x if the scanner resolution is doubles, assuming the same bit depth capture is used. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger image than the 2000 dpi model? Thanks for clearing this up, Bill -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. 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: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. 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: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz 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: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
I have never let the scanner software do any sharpening or resampling if I can avoid it; and as I am learning this seems to be in line with current thought. The reasoning for not doing this and leaving it for post scan editing programs are two fold, although there are other reasons as well. First, the available means for both resampling and sharpening are typically better and more sophisticated in the post scan third party software than in the scanning software. Secondly, one has more control over resampling and sharpening as to degree and type of resampling (and more specifically sharpening). You can regulate the type, method, and degree of sharpening (and even resampling) by using post scan applications more than if one uses the scanner software. Photoshop, for example, offers from 3-4 methods of resampling with others methods available via plugin applications such as Genuine Fractals and others; whereas scanner software typically offers only one method. Scanner software typically permits only one method of sharpening that the user has no control of ver the location and degree of sharpening that will be applied, while Photoshop has only one method of sharpening (the unsharp mask); but it allows the user to set the radius and amount of sharpening that is to be applied as well as the tolerance level where it will kick in - not to mention that you can define the areas of the image that will be sharpened so as to do localized sharpening. There are other programs and plugins out there which give even more flexibility in defining the sharpening method, degree, and type of sharpening that will be done - Pixel Genius's Photokit Sharpener is one such application. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: questionforArt Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that
[filmscanners] another Sharpening question
Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
From: Ed Verkaik I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) No. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[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: another Sharpening question
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
From: Ed Verkaik Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves should work fine. But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Flatbed scanner question
Traffic has been very slow lately so I hope you don't mind a somewhat off topic question. I want to replace my ageing Umax 1200S which is starting to fail. I already have a SS4000, so I don't need film scanning capability. I want an inexpensive flatbed for general scanning: scanning photos where I don't have the negative, OCR, etc. I don't want to pay more than $300 US. There are numerous scanners available but I really want one that is 8.5 x 14, not 8.5 x 11. The only one I found is the Microtek X12USL. It is about $250 US and has a SCSI interface which I like (I have many other SCSI devices). However, it has been around for many years although it is still in production. Does anybody know anything about the X12USL, or have any other recommendations? Thanks. Nick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question for Art
A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] list
Hi Tony .. I haven't been receiving my dailies from [filmscanners]. Are you still in business with this effort? If so I'd appreciate being (remaining) on the list. Frank Keresztes-Fischer Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Virus WARNING 'Site changes' mail
Last night at 04.00+5.00 GMT a mail was distributed as a filmscanners_digest list mail. The mail contained W32Beagle/Bagle variant virus. The message title was 'Site changes'. I received a copy myself. DO NOT OPEN THIS MAIL, DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY. I have had a couple of mails from concerned list members. Plus of course a hundred or so returned rejected mails from automated AV responders. I believe what was distributed was non-infectious and non-harmful, since NAV is in use on the list server with 22/03/04 defs. The message should have been cleaned before distribution by the listserver. However I can't be absolutely sure what got distributed as the copy I received had already been interdicted by NAV as incoming mail. Details and removal tools are at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have run a full AV scan and GFI mail security scan on the server, both come up clean. The mail will have originally come from a digest member who has somehow acquired W32Bagle :( Probably someone on the E.Coast of the USA, if the timezone can be believed, PLEASE ensure you are running effective antivirus progs with up-to-date AV defs. and never open attachments unless you are sure they are safe. NO EMAILS FROM THE FILMSCANNERS LIST SERVER WILL EVER CONTAIN ATTACHMENTS, so if you get such a mail, delete it unread. Regards Tony Sleep www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: list
HI, Frank! I think that the list is just not too busy right now. Maybe everyone's out shooting pictures to scan later! (and I'm stuck at work... :-/ ) Guy -Original Message- From: Frank K-F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:30 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] list Hi Tony .. I haven't been receiving my dailies from [filmscanners]. Are you still in business with this effort? If so I'd appreciate being (remaining) on the list. Frank Keresztes-Fischer 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: Flatbed scanner question
Nick, That may be the only one around that has legal size scanning capabilities within that price range. I do not now what the maximuim scan size is for the Epsons; but you might want to check and see what they have in their line of models. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Traffic has been very slow lately so I hope you don't mind a somewhat off topic question. I want to replace my ageing Umax 1200S which is starting to fail. I already have a SS4000, so I don't need film scanning capability. I want an inexpensive flatbed for general scanning: scanning photos where I don't have the negative, OCR, etc. I don't want to pay more than $300 US. There are numerous scanners available but I really want one that is 8.5 x 14, not 8.5 x 11. The only one I found is the Microtek X12USL. It is about $250 US and has a SCSI interface which I like (I have many other SCSI devices). However, it has been around for many years although it is still in production. Does anybody know anything about the X12USL, or have any other recommendations? Thanks. Nick -- -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Flatbed scanner question
I believe the Epsons are all 8.5x11. I just bought a 3170 and love it. The included profiles seem very good, better than I could generate with Monaco EZ Color. If you don't have too much large scanning to do, perhaps you could stitch scans together. Ed Lusby Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flatbed scanner question
on 3/23/04 2:07 PM, Ed Lusby at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the Epsons are all 8.5x11. I just bought a 3170 and love it. The included profiles seem very good, better than I could generate with Monaco EZ Color. If you don't have too much large scanning to do, perhaps you could stitch scans together. Ed Lusby -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body I have the Epson 2450 and yes, it is 8.5x11. Great scanner, and it will also do a great job on 4x5 film, and I've heard does well on medium format film as well. ~Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon V ED vs 5000 ED
Hi. Would be interested to hear your opinions about both models, their real-world comparison specifically. I used to have IV ED (LS-40) using it intensively for over 2 years so far. Generely satisifed by it, but recently, made an endeavor to start wotking with image stock agencies and their requirement is 4000 dpi scans out of 35mm format, so the question raised is about possible upgrade to either V ED or 5000 ED. I've learned though their specs, both have 4000 dpi, V ED does 14bit per color, 5000 - 16 bit and features some upgarded CCD sensor. But what bothers me is whether 5000 does really worth the 500$ expense over V ED in real world ? Does 14 - 16 bit per color channel make a real difference together with its upgraded CCD ? What do you say ? Regards, Alex www.zabrovsky.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
Maybe and maybe not. It certainly is a definite possibility but not a certainty. However, the question was what would keep the film chip flat. :-) But your advice on the possible limitation, which I neglected, is a welcome addition. Thank you. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 35mm slide mounts for scanning Those that keep the film chip the flattest would be glass mounts where the film chip is sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newtonian glass; Anti-Newton glass will show extra grain in the scan, because of the roughed glass surface. With kind regards, -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/15/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] 35mm slide mounts for scanning
Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning? TIA, Tom Maugham Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning? TIA, Tom Maugham -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
To do all the things that Laurie mentioned, find some Wess full frame mounts with pegs in them the sprocket holes fit over. This mount will show the whole frame and will hold it very flat. I have used them in the darkroom when masking 35mm slides. I believe that someone has bought out Wess but is still making at least some on their mounts. Wess mounts were/are the professional standard for audio/visual displays. I can look up the stock number for them if you need it. The only drawback there might be to them is that they are a little thicker than a standard mount so if you have a scanner that is finicky, they may not work for you. Michael - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning? TIA, Tom Maugham -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 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: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
Mounts that keep the frame as flat as possible. Thanks... Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: March 15, 2004 10:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning? TIA, Tom Maugham -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 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: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
Those that keep the film chip the flattest would be glass mounts where the film chip is sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newtonian glass; but there is always the possibility that (a) it will be too thick for your film scanner, (b) you will get newtonian rings despite the anti-newtonian glass, and (c) you will have to be involved with maintenance keeping the two pieces of glass clean. However, if that is the route you wish to try, you can look into Gape slide mounts if they are still in business. If you wish to avoid the additional maintenance work of a glass mount, need a thin mount, and want to avoid the possibility of newtonian rings, then you would be looking at a glassless mount. For those, you might check Weiss, which someone else already mentioned, Loesch in Pa (USA), or Pakon. Needless to say, I do not know if these manufacturers products are available in the UK; but they are for the most part in the US. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mounts that keep the frame as flat as possible. Thanks... Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: March 15, 2004 10:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning? TIA, Tom Maugham -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 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 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
Those that keep the film chip the flattest would be glass mounts where the film chip is sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newtonian glass; Anti-Newton glass will show extra grain in the scan, because of the roughed glass surface. With kind regards, -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Mechanical problems LS30
Hi, I have a problem with my Nikon LS30 scanner now and then but it happens more and more. The Nikon LS30 has 2 motors, one to push and pull the scanning-unit up and down to set the focus and one to drag the scanning-unit forth and back to scan the negative or slide. When I switch the scanner on it starts pulling the scanning-unit down and then pushing it up a few millimeters. But than it stops and give a low frequency beep for about 10 seconds. The green led is flashing and after the beep stops it glows continuously. Then the scanner does nothing and cannot be used. I tried to solve this problem many times and disassembled the scanner almost completely. In most cases it starts working properly after that but I never found anything that caused the problem. Now the scanner has this problem so often that I cannot use it any more. I am using a SCSI adapter on a modern 2,8 MHz P4 system, Windows XP professional and VueScan 7.5.47. Does anyone know anything of this problem and can give me any advise? Vincent Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Arthur Entlich -temp address change
I want to inform all my friends and enemies that I am changing my Internet Provider on March 15th. Until that date, all regular addresses should be functional. I am switching from cable to ADSL (fingers crossed). I do not yet know my new ADSL address, but both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will disappear very shortly after March 15th, as will my private email address, for those who have that on file. If someone has an emergency question and needs to contact me during the few days around March 15th, I recommend you send me email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That will NOT be a regular mailbox, but I will be checking it for a week or two. Once my new email boxes are established, I will post it and resubscribe to the lists I regularly frequent. Thanks, Art Entlich Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Arthur Entlich -temp address change
This post from Art is the first I've received since on this list since 1 March. Has the list been down? Have I missed much? Tris At 04:36 AM 3/11/2004 -0800, you wrote: I want to inform all my friends and enemies that I am changing my Internet Provider on March 15th. Until that date, all regular addresses should be functional. I am switching from cable to ADSL (fingers crossed). I do not yet know my new ADSL address, but both [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] will disappear very shortly after March 15th, as will my private email address, for those who have that on file. If someone has an emergency question and needs to contact me during the few days around March 15th, I recommend you send me email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That will NOT be a regular mailbox, but I will be checking it for a week or two. Once my new email boxes are established, I will post it and resubscribe to the lists I regularly frequent. Thanks, Art Entlich Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Arthur Entlich -temp address change
Hi Tris, I think its been a slow time. Looking at prior email (and I don't keep everything that shows up on the list) my last saved email from flimscanners was also March 1. It might just be quiet time in the filmscanner list. Art Tris Schuler wrote: This post from Art is the first I've received since on this list since 1 March. Has the list been down? Have I missed much? Tris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
...and I bet you didn't even notice:) New mobo/faster cpu/more RAM/new OS (XPPro). And thankfully it has stopped falling over then refusing to reboot Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
Bob Frost wrote: Surely the whole purpose of collimated light sources is to achieve maximum resolution (I seem to remember this from my light microscopy days many years ago). Actually, not really. You achieve higher contrast and higher apparent sharpness at boundaries with collimated light, but if you equalise contrast by other means, sharpness is pretty much identical. I say 'pretty much' because there are some small-order interactions between film grain edges and collimated light, which leads to enhanced adjacency effects (an optical version of a sharpening filter). Diffuse light bounces around more within the emulsion and tends to creep round grain edges. However the optical ability of the lens system is unaffected and a touch of USM should restore comparability. What's more of a problem is the existence of higher amplitude HF with collimated light excites more grain aliasing through interaction with the sensor Nyquist limit. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
Hope it serves you well and gives you little trouble in the future. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday ..and I bet you didn't even notice:) New mobo/faster cpu/more RAM/new OS (XPPro). And thankfully it has stopped falling over then refusing to reboot Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
Tony, Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light microscopy many years ago. ;) Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Frost wrote: Surely the whole purpose of collimated light sources is to achieve maximum resolution (I seem to remember this from my light microscopy days many years ago). Actually, not really. You achieve higher contrast and higher apparent sharpness at boundaries with collimated light, but if you equalise contrast by other means, sharpness is pretty much identical. I say 'pretty much' because there are some small-order interactions between film grain edges and collimated light, which leads to enhanced adjacency effects (an optical version of a sharpening filter). Diffuse light bounces around more within the emulsion and tends to creep round grain edges. However the optical ability of the lens system is unaffected and a touch of USM should restore comparability. What's more of a problem is the existence of higher amplitude HF with collimated light excites more grain aliasing through interaction with the sensor Nyquist limit. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
But isn't that the best type of upgrade, where the outside world doesn't even see the blood. sweat and tears that you suffered through? Computer upgrades are like sausages, you really don't want to know what went into making them when you're eating them. ...and this coming from a vegetarian. Thank you for continuing to support the list, with both your time and your pounds (and for not throwing them around very often) (that was a pun... get it... pounds as in currency, and pounds as in weight) ;-) OK, I'm going, I'm going... Art Tony Sleep wrote: ...and I bet you didn't even notice:) New mobo/faster cpu/more RAM/new OS (XPPro). And thankfully it has stopped falling over then refusing to reboot Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
Bob Frost wrote: Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light microscopy many years ago. ;) Mine's mostly from enlargers, many years ago:) All I can say is that I bought a condenser head for a Durst which already had a diffuser head, because I wanted sharper, contrastier, as alleged. And I was miffed to find that, apart from being almost exactly one paper grade contrastier I could see no difference. If I used a harder grade with the diffuser head, I could see no benefit at all from the condenser head even using a magnifier. All I could see was marginally more blown extreme highlights, already a problem with the (then new) straightline films like TMax, more scratches and marks. The condenser head went back in its box and stayed there. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
At 1:10 AM + 3/2/04, Tony Sleep wrote: I could see no benefit at all from the condenser head even using a magnifier. All I could see was marginally more blown extreme highlights, already a problem with the (then new) straightline films like TMax, more scratches and marks. The condenser head went back in its box and stayed there. Even more extreme, the 1972-vintage Durst 4x5 purchased by my Biology Dept. came with an optional point-source head, which was all the rage back then for printing scientific images (such as negatives from an electron microscope). It too was supposed to increase the sharpness and detail one could obtain from these already contrasty negatives, but all it did was enhance the dust and scratches. It too went back in its box. Regards, Roger Smith Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
