[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
On 9/8/04 4:32 PM, Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. I have not been a conspicuous presence on this list, mostly lurking for a couple of years. I have learned a lot from the good people here, and perhaps contributed a few meager tidbits of info from my own experience. I hope the list does not die. But I want to voice a cautionary reaction to Brad's suggestion. For me, the best mailing lists are those that address a narrow topic, and stay focused on that topic. This means that I don't have to wade through a lot of articles to find the few that I want to read. Digital photography is a rather broad field, and could encompass scanning, digicams, photoediting, color management, printing, imaging for the web, business and employment issues, etc. Some of those subfields interest me, some do not. I would hate to see this group evolve into a high volume list covering a diffuse range of topics. I would rather subscribe to a small set of focused lists that cover the subfields I follow. That's what I am doing now. -- Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Revive this list?!
Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, including actual practice - are still around. Flattery will get you everywhere you smooth talker you; but on these sorts of lists flattery will only get you in trouble. :-) First, I make no claims to being a guru of any sort. I have just been around for a while and been on many lists; thus, I am at best a compendium of the things that I picked up for being on all these lists for a while from others wiht not training, technical knowledge, and expertise than I. But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has done a superior job of maintaining it. Second you are right it is Tony's list; and he is the one who has to decide if he wants to continue it, if he wants to expand its focus and how? What do you think? Can it be done and be useful? I think so, but ultimately, I am not the one doing it. I think that the traffic on the list has dwindled for a number of reasons. (1). Tony has given other interests and concerns of his priority over the list, which he has every right to do but which may have resulted in some neglect of list housekeeping operations. (2). Tony has had problems with servers and ISPs during the course of the list's history, which has resulted in the list being down or having problems on ocassion withthe consequence that subscribers may have thought that the list had gone defunct. (3). The amount of film scanning has decreased as more and more photographers have turned to digital cameras which has resulted in fewer persons being attracted to a group dedicated to the topic of film scanning alone. (4). Finally, many of the older subscribers to the list may have burned out or gotten tied of answering the same old qustions over and over, responding to the same old requests for information or problems over and over, or engaging in intermurial food fights which other list members (usually newcomers to the list) who regard the list not as an online community but as a technical assistance businesslike forum where everything needs to be on topic and fit their conception of what they thought the group was or should provide them. Keeping this in mind, I think that the group might survive if it expands it focus to include capturing images using both scanners and digital cameras; but expanding it to other areas of imaging that take place later in the wrokflow might make for to broad and unfocused a group, which would result in too diverse a subscriber base leading to much complaining and dissatisfaction. There are plenty of generic and specialty lists on the internet that cover those aspects of imaging and little need for another. However, if one were to expand the subject matter covered by the list to include capturing and digitalizing images with film scanners and digital camera, I would think that one would want to change the name to reflect the new scope of the list. I have no favorites when it comes to names for the newly expanded list. But wahtever scope and name is selected by Tony, the list will have to be promoted by Tony and subscribers alike on other related and tangential lists so that others will know about the change in the list's name and scope as well as about the existence of the list if one expects to generate new subscribers and expand the subscriber base. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Laurie, Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. We don't have to duplicate Phil Askey, but I would love to know what actual experience is with different digital cameras - is the canon Mark II really that good, on one hand. At the other end, is there a realistic alternative to Epson 2200 or 4000? What if one is willing to give up a little, then is there something (I doubt it, but...). I read statements that there are software packages that are superior - especially faster - than Photoshop, really? How about just Digital Imaging? Or Digital Imaging Techniques? Perhaps to broad, but many of the discussions here were that broad just 6 months ago. But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has done a superior job of maintaining it. He has to be willing to have this change take place. If it is done well, it is conceivable that the list will mushroom and while I am willing to help in any way, I am in California... People who handle lists, like this one, well, are not common. I've been on and left other lists, they become time consuming without informing. The only other one I've stayed with is the Yahoo Yamaha FJ list. It too is well maintained and has drawn some real gurus - that is what makes it work. Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, including actual practice - are still around. What do you
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
Jules, Actually, that makes sense to me too - would you suggest what we might address best here? Scanners seem about done as a topic - they'll be around for a while, but they are more like appliances than specialized equipment and a lot of the issues have been addressed. I would like to keep this group going as the expertise here seems to be better than most lists I am aware of. Perhaps some others have suggestions also. Brad On 8/9/04 19:53, Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/8/04 4:32 PM, Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. I have not been a conspicuous presence on this list, mostly lurking for a couple of years. I have learned a lot from the good people here, and perhaps contributed a few meager tidbits of info from my own experience. I hope the list does not die. But I want to voice a cautionary reaction to Brad's suggestion. For me, the best mailing lists are those that address a narrow topic, and stay focused on that topic. This means that I don't have to wade through a lot of articles to find the few that I want to read. Digital photography is a rather broad field, and could encompass scanning, digicams, photoediting, color management, printing, imaging for the web, business and employment issues, etc. Some of those subfields interest me, some do not. I would hate to see this group evolve into a high volume list covering a diffuse range of topics. I would rather subscribe to a small set of focused lists that cover the subfields I follow. That's what I am doing now. -- Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Polaroid SS 4000 cleaning??!!
Hi, Before this list goes away completely, I have a question. Sometime ago, I seem to recall that someone reported taking apart a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 to clean either the CCD/light or the gears, or both. I also think I recall that the one caveat was to be very careful in handling the wiring to the switch, or plan to re-solder it. I think there was more information, but while I thought I had saved it, I can't fine it. Is the person who did this still here? Or is there anyone who has information regarding this? My scanner has not been cleaned or opened up in the 6 or so years that I have had it. I know it needs cleaning. If it is doable, I am reasonably handy and would do it myself, especially if I know where I am likely to run into problems.. Thanks, -- Brad The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Raw files in Vuescan
Date sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:13:02 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ed Lusby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] Re: Raw files in Vuescan I believe incorrect cropping can lead to autoexposure problems. If there is a significant area of black, for example, vuescan would tend to overexpose the raw scan, resulting in clipped highlights. You might check your scans for clipped highlights. If it's a small enough black area, it won't be significant perhaps. Light areas around the actual picture area would be expected to cause a loss of detail in the shadows. Auto cropping remains to be a problem in vuescan. The problem seems to vary with scanner and certainly vuescan version, as Ed has made many recent attempts to improve auto cropping lately. However, vuescan 8.0.4 remains the best version for me in terms of auto cropping with the LS5000. When Ed changed the auto crop algorithm in 8.0.8 and 8.0.9, he improved filmstrip auto cropping significantly, which was his goal. However slide scanning autocropping was quite bad. In version 8.0.11 (or thereabouts) he made slide auto cropping better, but still not as good as 8.0.4. One can deal with this situation in a couple of ways. You can either install the version best for your usage on a particular day, or you can try the various cropping options. When scanning film strips, you should trim the leading edges of the strips to be the same distance from the picture area for a scanner like the LS5000, which feeds in the bare strip. I much prefer the Minolta 5400 and vuescan for film strips. The auto cropping is very good, perhaps because of the use of a film strip cassette holder in this scanner. Ed Lusby I have just been looking at your post again and also those which replied with: Re: Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan) These were all very interesting and useful to me but I think my main question was not actually answered .(Much of the discussion centred on the effectiveness of Vuescan's autocrop feature) . I was scanning a big number of film strips with Vuescan and found a few of the output files had black borders (possibly from varied spacing between frames) .The Raw files,scanned at the same time, also had borders. My understanding of Vuescan is that raw files' colors are not affected, so that I simply have to trim them and process further ( in Vuescan and/or Photoshop). But the jpg and tif(non raw) output files will already have their colours adjusted ,somewhat inaccurately because of the black borders. Is this a correct interpretation ? If it is correct then it seems to me working with the raw files is the preferred next step. I would appreciate being enlightened on this. Thanks Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Raw files in Vuescan
Myles, You're right, the colors would not be affected, but, as I said before, I believe the exposure times could be affected, if the black/white strip is of significant size. I don't know what significant size is exactly, that' why I suggested you look for clipping in highlights and loss of shadow details in the scans to see if it is a real problem. Ed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
Hmmm...maybe I was a bit premature about my complaints. The batch I ran last night cropped perfectly. Now, if I can only figure out what I did to fix it Stay tuned! Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Raw files in Vuescan
I believe incorrect cropping can lead to autoexposure problems. If there is a significant area of black, for example, vuescan would tend to overexpose the raw scan, resulting in clipped highlights. You might check your scans for clipped highlights. If it's a small enough black area, it won't be significant perhaps. Light areas around the actual picture area would be expected to cause a loss of detail in the shadows. Auto cropping remains to be a problem in vuescan. The problem seems to vary with scanner and certainly vuescan version, as Ed has made many recent attempts to improve auto cropping lately. However, vuescan 8.0.4 remains the best version for me in terms of auto cropping with the LS5000. When Ed changed the auto crop algorithm in 8.0.8 and 8.0.9, he improved filmstrip auto cropping significantly, which was his goal. However slide scanning autocropping was quite bad. In version 8.0.11 (or thereabouts) he made slide auto cropping better, but still not as good as 8.0.4. One can deal with this situation in a couple of ways. You can either install the version best for your usage on a particular day, or you can try the various cropping options. When scanning film strips, you should trim the leading edges of the strips to be the same distance from the picture area for a scanner like the LS5000, which feeds in the bare strip. I much prefer the Minolta 5400 and vuescan for film strips. The auto cropping is very good, perhaps because of the use of a film strip cassette holder in this scanner. Ed Lusby Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
At 11:13 AM -0700 8/25/04, Ed Lusby wrote: [snip] Auto cropping remains to be a problem in vuescan. The problem seems to vary with scanner and certainly vuescan version, as Ed has made many recent attempts to improve auto cropping lately. However, vuescan 8.0.4 remains the best version for me in terms of auto cropping with the LS5000. When Ed changed the auto crop algorithm in 8.0.8 and 8.0.9, he improved filmstrip auto cropping significantly, which was his goal. However slide scanning autocropping was quite bad. In version 8.0.11 (or thereabouts) he made slide auto cropping better, but still not as good as 8.0.4. One can deal with this situation in a couple of ways. You can either install the version best for your usage on a particular day, or you can try the various cropping options. [snip] Hello all, Well, I finally got myself an LS5000 with a slide feeder (yahoo!), and I'm working on learning how to use it. Autocropping is one of the things I'm trying to figure out, as my first pass led to scans with black edges. Ed, do you have suggestions about where to start when you suggest try the various cropping options? Should I try to obtain 8.0.4? Should I use the software bundled with the scanner instead of vuescan? Does anybody else have some other ideas? My solution was going to be to mess with the settings semi-randomly, and if that failed to resolve the problem, simply accept the black edges and crop them out later. Thanks, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
Hi Carlisle, I haven't worked through the cropping issues with the latest version of vuescan myself. I'm currently using 8.0.11 (8.0.13 is latest?), which leaves a small black border at the top (most of the time). It hasn't interfered with what I'm currently doing, so I've just ignored it. There are several options for improving the cropping: 1. Use Nikonscan-I haven't used this for a while, but as I recall it crops very well. However, this isn't a satisfactory option for me, because Nikonscan's builtin profiles are not very good. I create DVD slide shows, so I need good profiles. Therefore for my work I need vuescan, which lets you create very good profiles. However, if you don't need to profile your scans, Nikonscan is a good option. 2. Use vuescan 8.0.4-no way to get this officially. This isn't a good long term solution, as Ed H. keeps improving vuescan for use with the LS5000. 3. Using vuescan whatever version, uncheck auto position; set crop size to manual; and turn lock aspect ratio to off. Do a preview scan and crop the picture as you want. Note the x and y offset settings, and x and y sizes. Create an ini file using these settings and values. I would contact Ed H. regarding your cropping problems. He's probably very tired of hearing from me regarding this issue; but I must say he's been very responsive so far. I think he reads messages in the usenet group comp.periphs.scanners more than email sent to him directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I usually contact him both places. I'll send him a message on this issue myself in day or so. Ed Hello all, Well, I finally got myself an LS5000 with a slide feeder (yahoo!), and I'm working on learning how to use it. Autocropping is one of the things I'm trying to figure out, as my first pass led to scans with black edges. Ed, do you have suggestions about where to start when you suggest try the various cropping options? Should I try to obtain 8.0.4? Should I use the software bundled with the scanner instead of vuescan? Does anybody else have some other ideas? My solution was going to be to mess with the settings semi-randomly, and if that failed to resolve the problem, simply accept the black edges and crop them out later. Thanks, Carlisle 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: Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
I've been dealing with this little problem ever since I first picked up an LS-20, then upgraded to an LS-4000 w/roll/slide feeders. Short answer: if you're willing to accept NOT having 100% of scannable area in your final scan, you can easily set the crop area (for slide at least) to within a certain parameter and know that the vast majority of your slides will fit within it and result in no trimming needed. Doing so for negatives though...that's another story on account of slight variations in the inter-frame intervals, especially over a selection of 40 frames or so, it can add up. So I've just become familiar with my post-scan 'crop' tool. :) Dieder Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400 Photoshop CS: best waytoscan
Ed, I think what I'm trying to get at is: Given a person with good Photoshop skills, is it an easier path to simply scan the neg in and modify it in Photoshop vs tweaking it in the scanning program and modifying it with the scan software? I'm coming from the viewpoint that the scanning software, be it Minolta's, Silverfast Ai, or vuescan, just is doing a crappier job of modifying the file POST scan, just as I could do with Photoshop in a better way. I've read reports to that effect. So, I'm asking if either of the above software packages modify anything PRE scan. If they don't, then: - does it matter what software package you use with the 5400, - what is the best setting to get the neg (both color and bw) scanned (16 bit, 16 bit linear, positive, whatever). Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ At 01:46 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote: Ok, my head is swimming here. I've read elsewhere that the Minolta 1.1.5 software (actually, any software, silverfast and vuescan too) just modifies the scan at the software level, not the hardware level. I'm talking about 'exposure compensation' tab and 'image correction tab.' Also, for background, I'm a very competent Photoshop user, and I don't have a problem modifying the scan with PS levels, curves, hue, etc. I'm a newbie at scanning. So, my question to you guys is what is the best way (fastest, highest quality file) to use the 5400, especially with color neg: - scan in 16 bit color neg, or - scan in 16 bit linear color neg, or - scan in as color positive, either 16 bit or 16 bit linear - And what about black and white film? - Will either of the two commercial scanning software packages (silverfast or vuescan) give me better results if you look at my premise? I just can't seem to find the resources anywhere for these questions. Will the resultant file be a sort of 'digital neg' in the same fashion a RAW file is for digital cameras? I figure since PS CS can manipulate 16 bit files, it's faster and easier for me to adjust things like color balance, leves, etc in PS rather than dither away my time in whatever scanning software I'm using. Thoughts? Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ - --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Minolta 5400 Photoshop CS: best waytoscan
There are several things that film scanner software do whiich are difficulat if not impossible to do with post scanner image editing programs such as Photoshop. 1. Many scanner software permits the user to do multi-pass scans which may enable one to capture additional detail in the shadow areas of positive films or the highlight areas of negative films. 2. Many scanner software packages have digital ICE3 provisions which rely on the scanner's hardware based infrared channel, which would otherwise not be available from progframs like Photoshop. 3. With respect to color negative, scanner software frequently has facilities to remove the orange masking from color negatives which is not possible in the case of programs like Photoshop. In addition, I would use 16 bit linear or raw scans for the scanning of positive transparancies but not with color negatives since the 16 bit scan does not permit one to eliminate the effect of the color negative's orange masking from the outputted file. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, I think what I'm trying to get at is: Given a person with good Photoshop skills, is it an easier path to simply scan the neg in and modify it in Photoshop vs tweaking it in the scanning program and modifying it with the scan software? I'm coming from the viewpoint that the scanning software, be it Minolta's, Silverfast Ai, or vuescan, just is doing a crappier job of modifying the file POST scan, just as I could do with Photoshop in a better way. I've read reports to that effect. So, I'm asking if either of the above software packages modify anything PRE scan. If they don't, then: - does it matter what software package you use with the 5400, - what is the best setting to get the neg (both color and bw) scanned (16 bit, 16 bit linear, positive, whatever). Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ At 01:46 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote: Ok, my head is swimming here. I've read elsewhere that the Minolta 1.1.5 software (actually, any software, silverfast and vuescan too) just modifies the scan at the software level, not the hardware level. I'm talking about 'exposure compensation' tab and 'image correction tab.' Also, for background, I'm a very competent Photoshop user, and I don't have a problem modifying the scan with PS levels, curves, hue, etc. I'm a newbie at scanning. So, my question to you guys is what is the best way (fastest, highest quality file) to use the 5400, especially with color neg: - scan in 16 bit color neg, or - scan in 16 bit linear color neg, or - scan in as color positive, either 16 bit or 16 bit linear - And what about black and white film? - Will either of the two commercial scanning software packages (silverfast or vuescan) give me better results if you look at my premise? I just can't seem to find the resources anywhere for these questions. Will the resultant file be a sort of 'digital neg' in the same fashion a RAW file is for digital cameras? I figure since PS CS can manipulate 16 bit files, it's faster and easier for me to adjust things like color balance, leves, etc in PS rather than dither away my time in whatever scanning software I'm using. Thoughts? Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400 Photoshop CS: best way toscan
1. Many scanner software permits the user to do multi-pass scans which may enable one to capture additional detail in the shadow areas of positive films or the highlight areas of negative films. 2. Many scanner software packages have digital ICE3 provisions which rely on the scanner's hardware based infrared channel, which would otherwise not be available from progframs like Photoshop. Yes, I'm not talking about these functions. These things are good, and the multi-pass scan is a hardware function (albeit controlled by sw). I don't know what ICE is, but I love it. If other sw can do a better raw-scan by opening some secret hardware-level nirvana, what are the sw settings to do so? 3. With respect to color negative, scanner software frequently has facilities to remove the orange masking from color negatives which is not possible in the case of programs like Photoshop. Well, I've removed it in Photoshop. In addition, I would use 16 bit linear or raw scans for the scanning of positive transparancies but not with color negatives since the 16 bit scan does not permit one to eliminate the effect of the color negative's orange masking from the outputted file. See above. My guesses, and I'd love responses, of the Minolta software settings so to get a 'raw' type scan are: - 16bit linear (vs 16 bit)...and if you know the difference, let me know, - don't know about about autoexposure vs manual, - autofocus unless there's a problem - don't know about multi-sampling - don't know about color matching output space (adobe RGB?) and ICC profiles - Color neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in PS? - B/W neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in PS? - Fuj chromes: no idea - ICE on, at least with color neg. - Grain dissolver off with color neg, don't know with b/w neg Best, David Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, I think what I'm trying to get at is: Given a person with good Photoshop skills, is it an easier path to simply scan the neg in and modify it in Photoshop vs tweaking it in the scanning program and modifying it with the scan software? I'm coming from the viewpoint that the scanning software, be it Minolta's, Silverfast Ai, or vuescan, just is doing a crappier job of modifying the file POST scan, just as I could do with Photoshop in a better way. I've read reports to that effect. So, I'm asking if either of the above software packages modify anything PRE scan. If they don't, then: - does it matter what software package you use with the 5400, - what is the best setting to get the neg (both color and bw) scanned (16 bit, 16 bit linear, positive, whatever). Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ At 01:46 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote: Ok, my head is swimming here. I've read elsewhere that the Minolta 1.1.5 software (actually, any software, silverfast and vuescan too) just modifies the scan at the software level, not the hardware level. I'm talking about 'exposure compensation' tab and 'image correction tab.' Also, for background, I'm a very competent Photoshop user, and I don't have a problem modifying the scan with PS levels, curves, hue, etc. I'm a newbie at scanning. So, my question to you guys is what is the best way (fastest, highest quality file) to use the 5400, especially with color neg: - scan in 16 bit color neg, or - scan in 16 bit linear color neg, or - scan in as color positive, either 16 bit or 16 bit linear - And what about black and white film? - Will either of the two commercial scanning software packages (silverfast or vuescan) give me better results if you look at my premise? I just can't seem to find the resources anywhere for these questions. Will the resultant file be a sort of 'digital neg' in the same fashion a RAW file is for digital cameras? I figure since PS CS can manipulate 16 bit files, it's faster and easier for me to adjust things like color balance, leves, etc in PS rather than dither away my time in whatever scanning software I'm using. Thoughts? Best, -David Ray Carson web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004 -- -- 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: Nikon LS4000 alignment - Scan multipro?
Yes the Minolta DSMP can scan Xpan at 4800, and also offers excellent Dmax. I utilise the multi-format holder for Xpan, but others have adapted 35mm holders. ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] LS2k vs LS4k
At 20:11 -0400 2004/08/09, Les Berkley wrote: I got a Dmax-Dmin of about 3.4 with my LS-2000; I would expect better from the 4000. Les I have had the LS2000 and am presently a very contented owner of an LS4000. The LS4000 picks out a far better range IMHO, especially in the darks and lights than the L2k. Dieder Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter
I use one and it seems to work quite well. One, in theory, could scan a roll of film unattended. Jack Dr. Terry Hemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/07/2004 08:21 PM Please respond to filmscanners To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:[filmscanners] Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon SA-30 35mm roll film adapter on an LS-4000ED ? Terry H. 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 LS4000 alignment - Scan multipro?
Thanks for all the reply's. At the moment, I'm considering opening up the scanner but on second thought I'll leave it alone for now. I may just get a better scanner. I'm rather disappointed with the limited D-range of this scanner, which is really only about 3.2. I'm not sure if mirror alignment would produce what I see, but that is a thought. There is a slight trapezoidal shape to the scan, which is what I would expect from a crooked mirror. Can the Minolta scan multi pro scan the full length of an Xpan frame at 4800 dpi, or does it have to be scanned as MF 3200 dpi? Xpan frame is 24x65mm. Wayne Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter
On Aug 9, 2004, at 07:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use one and it seems to work quite well. One, in theory, could scan a roll of film unattended. fergit theory... that's what I do all the time. chuckle Slice off the leader up to frame 1, throw it in, let it do thumbnail preview scans of the whole roll, choose settings for each of the pictures (based upon the thumbnail), rotate to the correct orientation, and then let'er'rip. :D Works great. re: thumbnailing and settings, I have a whole collection of settings for things like snow, sand, landscape, fog, night, over-exposed, under-exposed, etc. The thumbnails provide just enough info to know which setting to apply to each of them as appropriate. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 alignment - Scan multipro?
Hi! Minolta DSMP has an option to scan MF at 4800 PPI, but you have probably to utilize the MF holder. I have a DSMP, but I mostly scan 6x7. Best regards Erik Monday 09 August 2004 17.26 skrev W Shumaker: Thanks for all the reply's. At the moment, I'm considering opening up the scanner but on second thought I'll leave it alone for now. I may just get a better scanner. I'm rather disappointed with the limited D-range of this scanner, which is really only about 3.2. I'm not sure if mirror alignment would produce what I see, but that is a thought. There is a slight trapezoidal shape to the scan, which is what I would expect from a crooked mirror. Can the Minolta scan multi pro scan the full length of an Xpan frame at 4800 dpi, or does it have to be scanned as MF 3200 dpi? Xpan frame is 24x65mm. Wayne --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon LS4000 alignment - Scan multipro?
I got a Dmax-Dmin of about 3.4 with my LS-2000; I would expect better from the 4000. Les -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W Shumaker Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 alignment - Scan multipro? Thanks for all the reply's. At the moment, I'm considering opening up the scanner but on second thought I'll leave it alone for now. I may just get a better scanner. I'm rather disappointed with the limited D-range of this scanner, which is really only about 3.2. I'm not sure if mirror alignment would produce what I see, but that is a thought. There is a slight trapezoidal shape to the scan, which is what I would expect from a crooked mirror. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter
I say in theory because I've gone off and left it over night only to find that it hasn't finished scanning the entire roll upon my return in the morning :( Jack Dieder Bylsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/09/2004 12:04 PM Please respond to filmscanners To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter On Aug 9, 2004, at 07:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use one and it seems to work quite well. One, in theory, could scan a roll of film unattended. fergit theory... that's what I do all the time. chuckle Slice off the leader up to frame 1, throw it in, let it do thumbnail preview scans of the whole roll, choose settings for each of the pictures (based upon the thumbnail), rotate to the correct orientation, and then let'er'rip. :D Works great. re: thumbnailing and settings, I have a whole collection of settings for things like snow, sand, landscape, fog, night, over-exposed, under-exposed, etc. The thumbnails provide just enough info to know which setting to apply to each of them as appropriate. 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 LS4000 alignment
if you feel the need to dissect your Nikon LS4000, this will prove to be useful: http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html I used this as a guide for my LS4000 to clean off dust from the mirror. You can skip step 3 since there are no screws under the feet of the scanner, but the rest is pretty straightforward FWIW. Dieder Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter
Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon SA-30 35mm roll film adapter on an LS-4000ED ? Terry H. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Sa-30 35mm roll film adapter
Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon SA-30 35mm roll film adapter on an LS-4000ED ? yup. works great. takes up to 40 frames at a go. sure beats doing it 6 frames at a time, let alone a single frame at a time. Dieder Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 alignment
I have never noticed a rotation problem with my scanner (though I've never done any scanning where lack of rotation would be critical), and doubt that there is any mechanical adjustment designed for the consumer to use. --Bill At 5:55 PM -0400 8/5/04, W Shumaker wrote: I've asked this before, but got no information. I'm consistently getting a 0.5degree rotation to my images scanned with the LS-4000 scanner. It seems that there must be some mis-alignment with the scanning mechanism. I'm wondering if this is something that can be adjusted or not. It makes scanning xpan shots for stitching more difficult. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Any suggestions are very welcome. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * bill_sub-AT-billfernandez-DOT-com * 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 LS4000 alignment
From: Bill Fernandez I have never noticed a rotation problem with my scanner (though I've never done any scanning where lack of rotation would be critical), and doubt that there is any mechanical adjustment designed for the consumer to use. --Bill It might be possible to tell what the problem is by opening the box and examining things. I don't have the LS-4000, but the LS-2000, which I believe is built in basically the same way, is a pretty simple device, and you can see quite a bit of its guts just by taking the outer box off. For instance, there's a mirror in the optical path that could have come slightly loose, and might be crooked. -- 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: Nikon LS4000 alignment
This might sound tongue-in-cheek, but have you considered setting up a script in Photoshop (or GraphicConverter if you use a Mac) to rotate your photos? I don't know of any setting in the scanner or in the scanner software. I think that you can see that, yes, I have experienced it. A W Shumaker at Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:55:05 -0400 said: I've asked this before, but got no information. I'm consistently getting a 0.5degree rotation to my images scanned with the LS-4000 scanner. It seems that there must be some mis-alignment with the scanning mechanism. I'm wondering if this is something that can be adjusted or not. It makes scanning xpan shots for stitching more difficult. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Any suggestions are very welcome. Wayne - --- 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: Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescan rawfiles
Didier wrote: I'd like to save the infraredchannel in step1 (64bit file) and then choose in step2 the right IR filter options for each picture (None/light/medium/heavy) I must have misunderstood something, as it doesn't work for me. My setup is different to yours (Windows + Minolta Scan Elite + Vuescan 8.0.10) but Vuescan can save my RAW scans with the Infrared channel intact. As it happens, I had just scanned a 64 bit RAW file the other day so was able to use it to test for certain. I found a hair on the raw file and selected each of the cleaning options in turn. As you would expect, hair got fainter on each output as heavier cleaning was selected. Did you create the raw file by putting a tick in the Raw file check box or just by setting the TIFF file type to the 64 bit RBGI output option? And did you have cleaning off when you created the RAW file? Playing around with outputting in 64 bit RBGI format from my RAW file, I found that, if I selected no cleaning option, the alpha channel was retained in the output file. However, as soon as any cleaning is selected, the Infrared channel was amalgamated and the output file had no alpha channel. This seems reasonable enough behaviour for the gamma corrected output. However, I wouldn't expect any cleaning option to have an effect on the creation of the actual RAW file (although I haven't tried) but it could be a bug. So, yes, you should be able to do what you are trying to do! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescanrawfiles
Ed's about 1/2 way through a 2 week vacation. He often answers questions at the newsgroup comp.periphs.scanners He's corrected a couple of problems that I've communicated to him there. Regards, Ed Lusby It's a pity Ed Hamrick doesn't come anymore on this forum. Cheers. Didier 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] Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescan rawfiles
Hi all I use a two steps worflow inside Vuescan (MMP/MacOSX) : 1) scan my color negs and save rawfiles 2) scan these rawfiles later and save 48bits Tiffs I'd like to save the infraredchannel in step1 (64bit file) and then choose in step2 the right IR filter options for each picture (None/light/medium/heavy) I must have misunderstood something, as it doesn't work for me. Ed's manual (an old one?) tells the IR filter is calculated in the first step when you choose to save the Rawfile. Sounds strange to me ( no more reason to save a 64bit Raw in this case). Can somebody help? (I hope some of you remain online in summertime ;-)) Thanks and best regards. Didier Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescan rawfiles
I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 and I don't think the IR channel information can be saved so you cannot use IR when 'scanning' from file. I think the time to do this is at first scan anyway so that the raw file you save is as good as it can be. Peter Original Message Hi all I use a two steps workflow inside Vuescan (MMP/MacOSX) : 1) scan my color negs and save rawfiles 2) scan these rawfiles later and save 48bits Tiffs I'd like to save the infraredchannel in step1 (64bit file) and then choose in step2 the right IR filter options for each picture (None/light/medium/heavy) I must have misunderstood something, as it doesn't work for me. Ed's manual (an old one?) tells the IR filter is calculated in the first step when you choose to save the Rawfile. Sounds strange to me ( no more reason to save a 64bit Raw in this case). Can somebody help? (I hope some of you remain online in summertime ;-)) Thanks and best regards. Didier 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: Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescan rawfiles
Le 28 juil. 04, à 12:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 and I don't think the IR channel information can be saved so you cannot use IR when 'scanning' from file. I think the time to do this is at first scan anyway so that the raw file you save is as good as it can be. Hi Peter You must be right. I just don't understand why Vuescan leaves the opportunity to save 64bits rawfiles. It' also just a nonsense to spend time adjusting ICE corrections before saving the rawscan file. This two steps workflow should be an advanced one It's a pity Ed Hamrick doesn't come anymore on this forum. Cheers. Didier Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Printing and color management
Hi! I just tought about writing down some thoughts about printing and color. Printers and monitors have different gamuts that is color ranges they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors on screen and paper. As far as I can understand there are a couple of advantages of using managed color for nonprofessionals. 1) Consistency 2) Correct colors in images, not distorted by monitor settings I'm using Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) as image manipulation program, which gives me more setting than Adobe Photo Shop Elements. In PWP you can assign a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the picture will look like when printed. I won't say that this preview is entirely correct, but it certainly gives a hint of the cahnges introduced when printing. If using lcms color engine PWP will also be able to show which colors are out of gamut, this option is not available with the Windows color engine. Here is what I'm doing when printing, on my Canon i9950. 1) Choose printer setting 2) Go into manual 3) Leave everything as default (as I use original profiles) 4) In PWP:s printer dialog I set the printer profile that came with my printer for the paper I'm using. 5) Print This works pretty good for me. Regards Erik -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Printing and color management
Printers and monitors have different gamuts that is color ranges they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors on screen and paper. Correct. Printers and monitors also have different color spaces as well as ranges and transmissive and reflective qualities; printers use CYMK color spaces and monitors use RGB color spaces. As far as I can understand there are a couple of advantages of using managed color for nonprofessionals. 1) Consistency 2) Correct colors in images, not distorted by monitor settings You might also add that for those who want to share image files with others (who are on color managed systems using calibrated monitors, it allows everyone to get the same output - a type of consistency but different than the sort of consistency one talks about within a specific system where one is doing one's own printing and not sharing files per se. I'm using Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) as image manipulation program, which gives me more setting than Adobe Photo Shop Elements. In PWP you can assign a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the picture will look like when printed. I won't say that this preview is entirely correct, but it certainly gives a hint of the cahnges introduced when printing. If using lcms color engine PWP will also be able to show which colors are out of gamut, this option is not available with the Windows color engine. Cannot speak for Photoshop Elements since I use Photoshop CS, but the full Photoshop does offer all the settings you speak of and also soft proofing which is the name for a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the picture will look like when printed. Photoshop also shows what is out of gamut and is available for windows. I do not know Picture Window Pro; but I am sure that there are some less expensive consumer image editing programs out there which also furnish all or most of the features that you speak of and do it for windows. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: [filmscanners] Printing and color management Hi! I just tought about writing down some thoughts about printing and color. Printers and monitors have different gamuts that is color ranges they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors on screen and paper. As far as I can understand there are a couple of advantages of using managed color for nonprofessionals. 1) Consistency 2) Correct colors in images, not distorted by monitor settings I'm using Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) as image manipulation program, which gives me more setting than Adobe Photo Shop Elements. In PWP you can assign a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the picture will look like when printed. I won't say that this preview is entirely correct, but it certainly gives a hint of the cahnges introduced when printing. If using lcms color engine PWP will also be able to show which colors are out of gamut, this option is not available with the Windows color engine. Here is what I'm doing when printing, on my Canon i9950. 1) Choose printer setting 2) Go into manual 3) Leave everything as default (as I use original profiles) 4) In PWP:s printer dialog I set the printer profile that came with my printer for the paper I'm using. 5) Print This works pretty good for me. Regards Erik --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 7/16/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Screen calibration (was: RE: not enough memory?=
Yes there are a number of tools out there for calibrating and profiling monitors; but most of them do not work very well on consumer flat screen monitors; they work best on CRTs. Similarly, making an accurrate custom printer profile is not as easy as it may seem. The programs you mention can create satisfactory printer profiles if you are not too exacting or too demanding; but more often than not, users have not been all that satisfied with the results as compared to the use of canned generic profiles produced by the printer manufactures or the paper manufacturers. Many have said that the additional benefits of using such consumer methods based on scanners are not worth the time and trouble. Moreover, scanner based profiling often meeans that you scanner has to be calibrated and profiles as a spearate device for the end result to be close to accurate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: [filmscanners] Screen calibration (was: RE: not enough memory?= Hi there is a tool called Profile Mechanic - Monitor which can calibrate a monitor for 179 USD. Personally I use a Colorvision Monitor Spyder with OptiCal för PC Mac which is around 300 USD, here in Sweden. Regarding printer profiles there are probably prepared profiles for your printer. Making your own profile may not be that hard. There are some el cheapo tools for that to. You need an Q60 target (http://www.targets.coloraid.de), a flatbed scanner and Vuescan Pro. Check here: http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc6.htm#topic5 http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc7.htm#topic6 A good program for adjusting digital images is: Picture Window Pro, at www.dl-c.com, PC-only. A certified toolchain is much more expensive. Regards Erik Wednesday 14 July 2004 20.21 skrev Laurie Solomon: First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing in the $1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and profileing the monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer models of flat panel displays tend not to lend themselves to calibrating and profiling with the prosumer monitor calibration and profiling programs and devices on the market today, which work best with CTRs. The problem is that the color shifts on flat panel displays as one changes one's viewing angle; and the current prosumer calibrating and monitoring programs and devices cannot get an accurrate measure off of them. Second, I am not all that familiar with Photoshop Elements enough to say what it has and can do versus Photoshop; but Photoshop Elements was neither designed nor intended for professional use by photographers or artists. It was intended to compete with the hobbyist consumer level image editiing programs on the market. I would assume that it does not have many of the color management features of Photoshop since it was targeted to those who intend to merely edit and print theriown image files for themselves and for distribution via web mostly and via print occassionally to others and not for those who demand accurrate color management between multiple users and systems such as those who produce images for printing on commercial presses or for sale in galleries. Thirdly, generic monitor profiles typically come from the monitor manufacturer and not Adobe; and generic printer profiles usually come from the printer manufacturer and are based on use of their inks and papers only. Custom monitor profiles are generally done either by the user or a custom profile maker for a specific brand and model monitor; but their quality will vary depending on if the monitor is a CRT or a flat panel and will need to be reularly updated as the monitor ages over time if the monitor is a CRT. For printers, custom profiles ordinarily are made professionally by third partys and are based and dependent on the specific paper and ink combinations being used. Each change in inks (and sometimes ink lot) or media will necessitate its own profile. ICC profiles are merely made using ICC standards; but they work the same as any other type of profile. Welcome to the wide world of high tech where nothing is simple, nothing of quality is turnkey, and only in the world of advertising hype are things push button automated. Now for the less demanding who are willing to compromise and accept merely satisfactory quality and color management, some semblance of autopmation and turnkey operation is available; but not for the demanding professional, commercially targeted, or high end operation. This is why many of the professional high end big operations need to maintain professional technical experts on staff to keep the digital workflow going smoothly and with some efficiency not to mention accurrately. This was also the case in the old analog world once one got into the professional and commercial operations. Photo labs had to run daily test runs to make sure that everything was calibrated and up to quality levels some times two
[filmscanners] Screen calibration (was: RE: not enough memory?=
Hi there is a tool called Profile Mechanic - Monitor which can calibrate a monitor for 179 USD. Personally I use a Colorvision Monitor Spyder with OptiCal för PC Mac which is around 300 USD, here in Sweden. Regarding printer profiles there are probably prepared profiles for your printer. Making your own profile may not be that hard. There are some el cheapo tools for that to. You need an Q60 target (http://www.targets.coloraid.de), a flatbed scanner and Vuescan Pro. Check here: http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc6.htm#topic5 http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc7.htm#topic6 A good program for adjusting digital images is: Picture Window Pro, at www.dl-c.com, PC-only. A certified toolchain is much more expensive. Regards Erik Wednesday 14 July 2004 20.21 skrev Laurie Solomon: First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing in the $1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and profileing the monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer models of flat panel displays tend not to lend themselves to calibrating and profiling with the prosumer monitor calibration and profiling programs and devices on the market today, which work best with CTRs. The problem is that the color shifts on flat panel displays as one changes one's viewing angle; and the current prosumer calibrating and monitoring programs and devices cannot get an accurrate measure off of them. Second, I am not all that familiar with Photoshop Elements enough to say what it has and can do versus Photoshop; but Photoshop Elements was neither designed nor intended for professional use by photographers or artists. It was intended to compete with the hobbyist consumer level image editiing programs on the market. I would assume that it does not have many of the color management features of Photoshop since it was targeted to those who intend to merely edit and print theriown image files for themselves and for distribution via web mostly and via print occassionally to others and not for those who demand accurrate color management between multiple users and systems such as those who produce images for printing on commercial presses or for sale in galleries. Thirdly, generic monitor profiles typically come from the monitor manufacturer and not Adobe; and generic printer profiles usually come from the printer manufacturer and are based on use of their inks and papers only. Custom monitor profiles are generally done either by the user or a custom profile maker for a specific brand and model monitor; but their quality will vary depending on if the monitor is a CRT or a flat panel and will need to be reularly updated as the monitor ages over time if the monitor is a CRT. For printers, custom profiles ordinarily are made professionally by third partys and are based and dependent on the specific paper and ink combinations being used. Each change in inks (and sometimes ink lot) or media will necessitate its own profile. ICC profiles are merely made using ICC standards; but they work the same as any other type of profile. Welcome to the wide world of high tech where nothing is simple, nothing of quality is turnkey, and only in the world of advertising hype are things push button automated. Now for the less demanding who are willing to compromise and accept merely satisfactory quality and color management, some semblance of autopmation and turnkey operation is available; but not for the demanding professional, commercially targeted, or high end operation. This is why many of the professional high end big operations need to maintain professional technical experts on staff to keep the digital workflow going smoothly and with some efficiency not to mention accurrately. This was also the case in the old analog world once one got into the professional and commercial operations. Photo labs had to run daily test runs to make sure that everything was calibrated and up to quality levels some times two times a day. Printing press operatiors would have to constantly tweak the presses. Artists would constantly test paints and medium to make sure that what they gat was what they wanted and would work together. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/13/04 7:54 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/13/04 8:47 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, That's a question to toss to the folks at Adobe. Unless you're doing real critical work, you probably don't need the profiles (sounds like heresy, I know). Getting custom profiles done can be an expensive proposition. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Here is Epson's response: Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply the profiles is not available in the Elements version of
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
RantMode=On Does it bug anyone else that so many of these tests are run at small apertures? Too few are at f/5.6 or f/8 where a typical good prime is at its best. It's not like subjects hundreds of feet away need f/16 for DOF, so the lenses are needlessly handicapped by diffraction. RantMode=Off, BobG At 02:54 AM 7/15/2004, you wrote: Norm, Although both of the below sites compare the 1DS (similar to your SLR/n) with a Rollei and a Mamiya 7 (more sq. mm than your Hassy), I found the sites to be informative and ran tests much better than I could hope to do. http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/building.htm Hope this helps. Warren --- Norm Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). = Warren Xato For where to go when you know when [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
First of all, I wouldn't consider the test to be valid bearing teh huge gap in lens qualities. You'apparently putting Hasselblad's lens (i.e. Zeiss ine, even though zoom) against this all-in-one kind 28-300 Tamron turist's orineted zoom. I think to provide correct base under your estimation, you have to line-up your lenses achieving at least comparable optical qualities, particulalry if considering high-resolution scanning afterwards. If yuo work with Kodak - the appropriate one would be probably Nikon high-quality prime or professional zoom. Just my opinion. Alex --- Norm Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half bw with the end product in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40. I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. I take the test images from the same position and adjust the Tamron zoom factor to match the approximate vertical coverage of Hblad zoom. To avoid any focus hocus pocus I am measuring distances. I care mainly about the clarity issue --ie details and sharpness and less about color accuracy as this is more easily adjusted. The digital raw is 16 bit, 4500x3000 @ 300 rez which equals about 10 ht image. The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 are scanned on a Minolta MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what file size? Here are two I have tried and the thinking behind each: 1. Scan the 2.10 x 2.10 area at maximum of 4800 dpi which gives an image size of 34 sq and a file size of 604 mb which is simply too unwieldy. 2. Scan at the nearest even dpi to approximately double the image size since the 220 film is a little over 2x the ht of the Kodak orig of 1 which means 3200 dpi and image size 22.7, file size 268. I stand ready for any further ideas. At the end, if any one is interested, I shall try to post the results on my web site, normancarver.com Thanks for any help, Norm Carver Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 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: film vs digital test
Norm, Although both of the below sites compare the 1DS (similar to your SLR/n) with a Rollei and a Mamiya 7 (more sq. mm than your Hassy), I found the sites to be informative and ran tests much better than I could hope to do. http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/building.htm Hope this helps. Warren --- Norm Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). = Warren Xato For where to go when you know when [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
Norm, I think you're on target with the what works approach but will echo the comments about the Tamron 28-300. I have the 28-200, which is fine but a friends 28-300 is disapointingly soft. If memory serves, that was also noted in reviews of the lens (and photography mags tend only to damn with faint praise). I have a Tamron macro as well, so I'm not adverse to the company's products. The shorter Tamron or Nikon glass would be preferable, but again -- if the system works for you, it works. Bernie Norm Carver wrote: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half bw with the end product in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40. I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. snip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Moire - Scanners vs Digicams
Hi Al, I believe both Austin and David have provided you with information on the specifics of why moiré is more likely to occur on a digicam image than a scanned film image. I do not know how much of the technical jargon provided was comprehensible, so I will try to simplify the message, although my explanation may take more words to accomplish. Both digital cameras and film scanners are monochromatic (they really record only gray scale or luminescence information). However, as we all know, they seem to reproduce color images. How is that possible? Both use color separation filters to accomplish that feat, but the way they do so is quite different. As you probably know, the way color separation is accomplished is by using color filters over the sensor and then have that sensor acknowledged in software or firmware to be recording luma information for that color only. By measuring the amount of light which falls upon the sensor after filtered through a red, a green or a blue filter, when those three data values are brought together, the color of the light that was projected on the sensor can be determined. So, if a sensor has a red filter over it, is can measure the amount of red light in the light source projected upon it (through the filter) and so one with green and blue. With a film scanner (or a flat bed for that matter) one of two methods are likely to be used. With the vast majority of scanners there are three sets of CCD sensor strips. Each strip is covered with one of the three filter colors. As the slide or neg (or the reflected image color) is projected on the CCD sensor strip through the filter above it, each sensor point records the value of the light of the filter color hitting the sensor. Each point for which a sensor exists (such as 2820 per inch) is read by each of the three sensor strips, and the three data values are brought together so that each sensor point is expressed as a value for RED, GREEN and BLUE light. Thus each sensor point is given a value to indicate a specific color value. So, in this case, the film color values are recorded 2820 times per inch in both dimensions. That's a lot of sampling. The second method is similar, and used by Nikon film scanners. It uses one CCD strip with no filter over it, but the color of the light projected through the film changes three times, from RED to GREEN to BLUE, and the CCD sensor for each point takes a reading for each color change. You get the same amount of samples and information. Now, let's look at how most Bayer patterned cameras. Again, remember that the CCD sensor is still only reading luminescence values, not color. In order to allow the camera to record color, we again have to make color separations. In a perfect world, each data point would get 3 readings: one for Red, one for Blue and one for Green, using filters in front of the sensors to make the color separating information. But since digital cameras have to operate much faster, they need a whole chip of sensors to capture the whole image in one capture, unlike scanner which use just a strip of sensors one sensor wide which are moved (or the film is moved) until they cover the whole image (as you know this can take several minutes to accomplish). To do this with a digital camera would require 3 CCD sensor chips each with a color separating filter in front of it (R, G and B) with a beam splitter to distribute the light to each of the three CCDs. It would make the cameras much larger and more costly, and might even slow it down quite a bit, since the light hitting each CCD is cut in third or more. So, instead the Bayer pattern is used. This is a filter that has blocks of color (R, G or B) the exact size of each sensor in the CCD. This pattern is designed as follows: RGRGRGRGRGRGR GBGBGBGBGBGBG RGRGRGRGRGRGR GBGBGBGBGBGBG In this case, R=Red, G=Green and B=Blue. As you can readily see, a couple of problems exist. One, there are twice as many of sensors with a Green color separation filter in front of it than either Red or Blue. Two, any one sensor location only gets information about one of the colors. The advantage to this system is it requires only one CCD chip, the image can be captured rapidly with no mechanical or other alterations or filters. The disadvantage is that each sensor point only gets one piece of the color image data. So, the R(ed) covered sensor has to guess what the Green and Blue values were, the Blue has no idea what the Red and Green values were at that exact spot, and the same holds true to the Green, or which half the total sensors numbers are covered with. This requires the image to be processed with algorithms which look at surrounding data to make reasonable color guesses (interpolation) about those missing data points, and with sophisticated soft or firmware, a reasonable facsimile can be created. Where this system tends to be weak and create artifacts, is when there are very many contrast or color changes with
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
He apparently doesn't realize that Tamron and Tokina make privately branded lenses for a number of camera mfg. I've always found both brands to be very satisfactory. Which is how they test out, also. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
Berry, If you are going to be swapping images files with others or sending images off to a printer, then the first thing you must do is profile/calibrate your monitor. Otherwise what you see on your monitor will not be the same as what anyone else will see with the same image. The Eyeone display unit or the Colorvision spyder are both 'cheap' units for calibrating monitors. Then you have to calibrate your printer to match your profiled monitor. That can either be done by getting/making/buying printer profiles (but to use these it seems you need full Photoshop or another cheaper package that handles printer profiles. OR, you can do it the manual way by using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the prints more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, or b. When you get the prints matching your monitor, you save those printer settings for that paper. If you are never going to swap image files, you don't have to profile your monitor, you can simply alter the printer driver settings until the prints match your monitor, and then save them. Making sure that you don't change your monitor settings after this. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am really pissed at how hard it is to do just this simple thing: -using a Mac G4 with adequate memory -using a Mac flat panel monitor -using PS Elements -using an Epson 2200 -using a standard Epson paper to make the image on the screen match the printed image. Now, is that so bad? All of that, one would think, would have been easily automated by now. But instead, I am asked to buy $600 software from Adobe, or a few hundred to develop custom profiles (for standard products) or various and other sundry gyrations. You know, I am a photo artist, not a GD computer jock, and frankly, all the computereze stuff bores me to hell. Sorry to dump, but why is this so hard? I don't even know really if buying the full PS will solve this simple task. What do you think? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
Bob, I would only add a qualifier to one statement you have made. You say: OR, you can do it the manual way by using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the prints more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, or b. My qualification is that this manual method will only work if you are only printing yourown image files but will not work if and when yo try to share those files with others unless you also send them the saved file containing those slider settings and the other person also uses a similar Epson printer model that uses the same printer drivers. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, If you are going to be swapping images files with others or sending images off to a printer, then the first thing you must do is profile/calibrate your monitor. Otherwise what you see on your monitor will not be the same as what anyone else will see with the same image. The Eyeone display unit or the Colorvision spyder are both 'cheap' units for calibrating monitors. Then you have to calibrate your printer to match your profiled monitor. That can either be done by getting/making/buying printer profiles (but to use these it seems you need full Photoshop or another cheaper package that handles printer profiles. OR, you can do it the manual way by using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the prints more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, or b. When you get the prints matching your monitor, you save those printer settings for that paper. If you are never going to swap image files, you don't have to profile your monitor, you can simply alter the printer driver settings until the prints match your monitor, and then save them. Making sure that you don't change your monitor settings after this. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am really pissed at how hard it is to do just this simple thing: -using a Mac G4 with adequate memory -using a Mac flat panel monitor -using PS Elements -using an Epson 2200 -using a standard Epson paper to make the image on the screen match the printed image. Now, is that so bad? All of that, one would think, would have been easily automated by now. But instead, I am asked to buy $600 software from Adobe, or a few hundred to develop custom profiles (for standard products) or various and other sundry gyrations. You know, I am a photo artist, not a GD computer jock, and frankly, all the computereze stuff bores me to hell. Sorry to dump, but why is this so hard? I don't even know really if buying the full PS will solve this simple task. What do you think? -- -- 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: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing in the $1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and profileing the monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer models of flat panel displays tend not to lend themselves to calibrating and profiling with the prosumer monitor calibration and profiling programs and devices on the market today, which work best with CTRs. The problem is that the color shifts on flat panel displays as one changes one's viewing angle; and the current prosumer calibrating and monitoring programs and devices cannot get an accurrate measure off of them. Second, I am not all that familiar with Photoshop Elements enough to say what it has and can do versus Photoshop; but Photoshop Elements was neither designed nor intended for professional use by photographers or artists. It was intended to compete with the hobbyist consumer level image editiing programs on the market. I would assume that it does not have many of the color management features of Photoshop since it was targeted to those who intend to merely edit and print theriown image files for themselves and for distribution via web mostly and via print occassionally to others and not for those who demand accurrate color management between multiple users and systems such as those who produce images for printing on commercial presses or for sale in galleries. Thirdly, generic monitor profiles typically come from the monitor manufacturer and not Adobe; and generic printer profiles usually come from the printer manufacturer and are based on use of their inks and papers only. Custom monitor profiles are generally done either by the user or a custom profile maker for a specific brand and model monitor; but their quality will vary depending on if the monitor is a CRT or a flat panel and will need to be reularly updated as the monitor ages over time if the monitor is a CRT. For printers, custom profiles ordinarily are made professionally by third partys and are based and dependent on the specific paper and ink combinations being used. Each change in inks (and sometimes ink lot) or media will necessitate its own profile. ICC profiles are merely made using ICC standards; but they work the same as any other type of profile. Welcome to the wide world of high tech where nothing is simple, nothing of quality is turnkey, and only in the world of advertising hype are things push button automated. Now for the less demanding who are willing to compromise and accept merely satisfactory quality and color management, some semblance of autopmation and turnkey operation is available; but not for the demanding professional, commercially targeted, or high end operation. This is why many of the professional high end big operations need to maintain professional technical experts on staff to keep the digital workflow going smoothly and with some efficiency not to mention accurrately. This was also the case in the old analog world once one got into the professional and commercial operations. Photo labs had to run daily test runs to make sure that everything was calibrated and up to quality levels some times two times a day. Printing press operatiors would have to constantly tweak the presses. Artists would constantly test paints and medium to make sure that what they gat was what they wanted and would work together. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/13/04 7:54 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/13/04 8:47 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, That's a question to toss to the folks at Adobe. Unless you're doing real critical work, you probably don't need the profiles (sounds like heresy, I know). Getting custom profiles done can be an expensive proposition. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Here is Epson's response: Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply the profiles is not available in the Elements version of Photoshop. To use the ICC profiles correctly, you would need to be useing certified ICC profiiles in conjunction with a program that is certified to handle ICC profiles. So this would mean that I would need to upgrade to the full PS. Has anyone else used ICC profiles with Elements? On a Mac or PC? Berry Hi Bernie, Frankly, I don't know how to ask the folks at Adobe anything. They have a useless forum where there is a lot of chatter about all kinds of details that the software folks should have automated long ago in my opinion. You go to the profiles area, and you have one option for Macs: download a 4.2MB thing that may have nothing that I need. There is no info or selectivity provided about what you might need. I am really pissed at how hard it is to do just this simple thing: -using a Mac G4 with adequate memory -using a
[filmscanners] Moire - Scanners vs Digicams
Hi folks, I was looking at some 5 megapixel (Canon G5) sample images to get some idea how the might compare against my 2820 dpi scanner. I know I have read in the past that, despite the large difference in file sizes and pixel counts, a 5MP camera isn't as far behind a 2820 dpi scanner as it might seem. Certainly the sample G5 images looked reasonable but, on one image of a house, the fine roof tile details had generated a fairly obvious moire pattern. This is something I have never come across on any of my film scans. Have I just got lucky on my scans or is moire more likely to happen with digicams? Also, does the processing affect this? The G5 image in question was available on the Web as both a camera produced Jpeg and as a RAW file: when I processed the RAW file in Vuescan to produce a 16 bit TIFF and applied edge sharpening in Photoshop, the moire was more noticable than in the Jpeg - but there was also much more fine detail than in the Jpeg. I'm just curious to know why there seems to be this apparent difference between digicams and scanners! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
on 7/14/04 8:48 PM, Norm Carver at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half bw with the end product in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40. I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. I take the test images from the same position and adjust the Tamron zoom factor to match the approximate vertical coverage of Hblad zoom. To avoid any focus hocus pocus I am measuring distances. I care mainly about the clarity issue --ie details and sharpness and less about color accuracy as this is more easily adjusted. The digital raw is 16 bit, 4500x3000 @ 300 rez which equals about 10 ht image. The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 are scanned on a Minolta MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what file size? Here are two I have tried and the thinking behind each: 1. Scan the 2.10 x 2.10 area at maximum of 4800 dpi which gives an image size of 34 sq and a file size of 604 mb which is simply too unwieldy. 2. Scan at the nearest even dpi to approximately double the image size since the 220 film is a little over 2x the ht of the Kodak orig of 1 which means 3200 dpi and image size 22.7, file size 268. I stand ready for any further ideas. At the end, if any one is interested, I shall try to post the results on my web site, normancarver.com Thanks for any help, Norm Carver An idea: Choose a test which would let each system shine to the moximum, giving you the best product it can within your constraints, in the format of your choice, which appears to be large prints. The main point is that the test should focus on the final print, and not be a mere equipment test done independently of your needs. Since you print up to 40, you might want to use that size print as the standard. Or maybe it would be more reasonable to pick a smaller size print that you know you want the 300dpi resolution on, say 16. Perhaps the larger prints can hold up at lower res since they might be viewed from a greater distance. This 16 square print would require a file size of 69MB at 24-bit depth. The scanner resolution must be 2285 ppi. Then make the best print you are able to make, on the paper you prefer, with that film scan file. Then make the best, highest resolution digital Kodak camera image, of the same subject(s) under similar conditions. The camera actually produces a 14 megapixel, 42 MB file, about 60% of the scanned file size. Now if you demand the square format, then you have to throw away 33% of that file, leaving you with 3024 pixel in each dimension. At 16, that produces 189 ppi image resolution at the print, so it is substantially below the 300 ppi from the 'Blad. Anyway, this is what it gives you, so print at the same 16 print size, or whatever was used before. It seems like the lenses are not comparable zoom ranges for a more general test, but I guess you are testing your own setup. Others might be interested in a similar (equivalent) zoom range for the two cameras. ~Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test
Hi! My suggestion would be: - Scan at highest resolution on the Multi Pro (3200 PPI for 120 format) - Decide on a given print size, like 70x50 cm and a given resolution like 300 DPI. - Crop the pictures to corresponding format in Photoshop (or whatever you use) - Scale the image to your format aim (can be done using the crop tool in photoshop) - Save the image as TIFF or JPEG with high quality. The Tamron zoom is probably a joke, I would suggest that you get a real lens. Superzooms like the Tamron are known to have lousy performance. Best regards Erik Kaffehr Thursday 15 July 2004 04.48 skrev Norm Carver: I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half bw with the end product in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40. I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. I take the test images from the same position and adjust the Tamron zoom factor to match the approximate vertical coverage of Hblad zoom. To avoid any focus hocus pocus I am measuring distances. I care mainly about the clarity issue --ie details and sharpness and less about color accuracy as this is more easily adjusted. The digital raw is 16 bit, 4500x3000 @ 300 rez which equals about 10 ht image. The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 are scanned on a Minolta MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what file size? Here are two I have tried and the thinking behind each: 1. Scan the 2.10 x 2.10 area at maximum of 4800 dpi which gives an image size of 34 sq and a file size of 604 mb which is simply too unwieldy. 2. Scan at the nearest even dpi to approximately double the image size since the 220 film is a little over 2x the ht of the Kodak orig of 1 which means 3200 dpi and image size 22.7, file size 268. I stand ready for any further ideas. At the end, if any one is interested, I shall try to post the results on my web site, normancarver.com Thanks for any help, Norm Carver --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
Here is Epson's response: Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply the profiles is not available in the Elements version of Photoshop. To use the ICC profiles correctly, you would need to be useing certified ICC profiiles in conjunction with a program that is certified to handle ICC profiles. So this would mean that I would need to upgrade to the full PS. Has anyone else used ICC profiles with Elements? On a Mac or PC? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
Berry, That's a question to toss to the folks at Adobe. Unless you're doing real critical work, you probably don't need the profiles (sounds like heresy, I know). Getting custom profiles done can be an expensive proposition. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Here is Epson's response: Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply the profiles is not available in the Elements version of Photoshop. To use the ICC profiles correctly, you would need to be useing certified ICC profiiles in conjunction with a program that is certified to handle ICC profiles. So this would mean that I would need to upgrade to the full PS. Has anyone else used ICC profiles with Elements? On a Mac or PC? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
on 7/13/04 8:47 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, That's a question to toss to the folks at Adobe. Unless you're doing real critical work, you probably don't need the profiles (sounds like heresy, I know). Getting custom profiles done can be an expensive proposition. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Here is Epson's response: Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply the profiles is not available in the Elements version of Photoshop. To use the ICC profiles correctly, you would need to be useing certified ICC profiiles in conjunction with a program that is certified to handle ICC profiles. So this would mean that I would need to upgrade to the full PS. Has anyone else used ICC profiles with Elements? On a Mac or PC? Berry Hi Bernie, Frankly, I don't know how to ask the folks at Adobe anything. They have a useless forum where there is a lot of chatter about all kinds of details that the software folks should have automated long ago in my opinion. You go to the profiles area, and you have one option for Macs: download a 4.2MB thing that may have nothing that I need. There is no info or selectivity provided about what you might need. I am really pissed at how hard it is to do just this simple thing: -using a Mac G4 with adequate memory -using a Mac flat panel monitor -using PS Elements -using an Epson 2200 -using a standard Epson paper to make the image on the screen match the printed image. Now, is that so bad? All of that, one would think, would have been easily automated by now. But instead, I am asked to buy $600 software from Adobe, or a few hundred to develop custom profiles (for standard products) or various and other sundry gyrations. You know, I am a photo artist, not a GD computer jock, and frankly, all the computereze stuff bores me to hell. Sorry to dump, but why is this so hard? I don't even know really if buying the full PS will solve this simple task. What do you think? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
I, I have a Mac (G4 dual) and a P4 - both have 512 Mbyte, both more than 100 GB room (I still run out of space). Yes, the Mac has a place it spools for the printer - it is buried under the Drive 1/OS/system/god knows what/etc. IT isn't the problem. I also have a p2000 printer. I ran into problems printing from my Mac as long as I had OS 9.1 The problems were varied, and after offering to demonstrate cranial rectal inversion on someone at Epson, I was finally kicked up to someone who knew something. Basically, he had me turn off everything, but especially, I had to turn off background printing - Epson's drivers wouldn't work in the background, meaning that I couldn't edit and print at the same time. Since the P4 and the Mac are networked, I took to transferring the printing to the P4 which is happy to print in the background as it merrily does data modeling. I moved the process back when I got Mac OS 10.?, and it has been fine since then. Of course, Epson blames Mac, and from what I know of OS's, I think they are right, especially since they are able to get along with Windows. I suspect that there is no true background for Mac 9,1. While my experience was with background printing, I would suggest that there are other things that may be creating problems, and I would ask Epson if they even expect the 2200 driver to work with a Mac OS less than 10.2, or so. BTW perseverance used to work with Epson's customer service... Good luck, -- Brad The scientists, not the philosophers, now address most effectively the great questions of existence, the mind, and the meaning of the human condition. Edward O. Wilson --The Philosophers' Magazine, Autumn 1999 What do you mean by read the manual? [:~[:~[:~]] Just being cute in an attempt to keep things on the light side while informing you that I am a male. There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. There has to be one, although it may not be called that. If there is not one, where are the files that are sent to the printer stored while they are being feed to the printer and after they have been processed by the printer driver? If there is no spooler and the file is sent directly from the program to the printer or from the printer driver to the printer, the printer will chock on the overrun because the hardware buffer in the printer itself is relatively small and can only hold a limited amount of data before it chocks and crashes. Ok, it sounds as if you have a single drive with one partition. Since you have said that you have run a defragmenting program on that drive and 18 GB of free and available hard drive storage space, it seems as though lack of free and unfragmented space is not the problem. Now that I am sure that we are using the same language and talking about the same thing I have to admit that I am at a loss for solutions and you may have to speak with someone familiar with Macs. Have you called Epson about the problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/11/04 4:41 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken down into and what size are they? Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how much of the space in that partition is empty or free? Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had any temporary files in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Laurie, What do you mean by read the manual? [:~[:~[:~]]] There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. I don't have multiple hard drives or partitions...unless those partitions are kept blissfully hidden away by the Mac OS. I'm now going to try to print something of the same size etc without using the new profiles. Merci, Berry -- -- 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: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
I have a scanned image that is 17.6 MB. I am trying to print it on an Epson 2200, 13x19 @1440dpi. I am getting an error after the printer driver has initiated, prior to anything actually going out to the printer, saying that there is not enough memory for this operation, and to close any unused applications. My guess would be that the driver stores the entire rendered image in RAM before sending it to the printer. (This is technically not necessary and it would have been easy to render the image as it is sent without storing more than a few lines of it, but EPSON must have chosen the high way when writing the driver.) Printing 13x19 (inches I assume) at 1440dpi makes 500 million pixels, each of which contains 7 bits (each of the 7 colours is either printed or not), so the uncompressed rendered image sent to the printer is something like 448 MB. The driver compresses this before sending it to the printer, but with a very cheap and inefficient algorithm which doesn't actually save much space. So your 320 MB RAM don't seem that much after all. There are no other applications open except for the Mac Finder. I have over 180 MB of unused memory available on my Mac G4, with a total of 320 MB of hardware RAM. Virtual memory is off, but it shouldn't be needed, and I have not needed it before. I have set the preferred allocation of memory for PS Elements to 120 MB (it was at 44 MB, but I upped it just to be sure that was not an issue.) Virtual RAM never hurts. Why turn it off in the first place? Am I correct in assuming that the size of the file that is being transmitted to the printer is 17.6 MB, which is the actual image file size on the hard drive, and the same as reported in Elements? See above. So what has changed? I added some Epson 2200 profiles that I downloaded from Epson, and I changed a setting or two in the print setup in PS Elements. But why should any of that matter? I have printed larger files on 13x19 before, so I am stumped. Any ideas? Maybe you're just a few MB over the available RAM. Turn virtual memory on, that's my suggestion. Andras Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken down into and what size are they? Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how much of the space in that partition is empty or free? Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had any temporary files in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/11/04 9:57 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, I use a PC and from time to time have had problems with the Epson 2100/2200 drivers which I've solved simply by deleting then reinstalling the driver, downloading it from the Epson site. (Crude but effective). The color managed workflow instructions that Epson publishes simply makes reference to Photoshop (not Elements). Since things worked before you installed the profiles, you may wish to go back to square one and see if that makes a difference. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Thanks for the responses, although I still have not solved the problem. The 1440dpi is a printer quality, not image file related. Sorry about the ambiguity. I usually try to stick to ppi when referring to the image file. I have 18 GB of unused hard drive space, and 180 MB of available RAM over and above what is used by Mac OS 9.1 and PS Elements, the only open application. Now I will try turning virtual memory on at 990 MB. I get back...have to restart the Mac. Thanks again ~Berry - - -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body I'm not sure what to think about Laurie's info, since the operating system of a Mac is quite different from PC's. I think I would need a Mac person who knows more than I do to read her post and explain. But I did try re-installing the printer driver and that had no effect. Thanks again for all the suggestions...I'll think about it some more later. ~Berry -- -- 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: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
on 7/11/04 4:41 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken down into and what size are they? Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how much of the space in that partition is empty or free? Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had any temporary files in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/11/04 9:57 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, I use a PC and from time to time have had problems with the Epson 2100/2200 drivers which I've solved simply by deleting then reinstalling the driver, downloading it from the Epson site. (Crude but effective). The color managed workflow instructions that Epson publishes simply makes reference to Photoshop (not Elements). Since things worked before you installed the profiles, you may wish to go back to square one and see if that makes a difference. Bernie Berry Ives wrote: Thanks for the responses, although I still have not solved the problem. The 1440dpi is a printer quality, not image file related. Sorry about the ambiguity. I usually try to stick to ppi when referring to the image file. I have 18 GB of unused hard drive space, and 180 MB of available RAM over and above what is used by Mac OS 9.1 and PS Elements, the only open application. Now I will try turning virtual memory on at 990 MB. I get back...have to restart the Mac. Thanks again ~Berry - - -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body I'm not sure what to think about Laurie's info, since the operating system of a Mac is quite different from PC's. I think I would need a Mac person who knows more than I do to read her post and explain. But I did try re-installing the printer driver and that had no effect. Thanks again for all the suggestions...I'll think about it some more later. ~Berry -- -- 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: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Laurie, What do you mean by read the manual? [:~[:~[:~]]] There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. I don't have multiple hard drives or partitions...unless those partitions are kept blissfully hidden away by the Mac OS. I'm now going to try to print something of the same size etc without using the new profiles. Merci, Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
What do you mean by read the manual? [:~[:~[:~]] Just being cute in an attempt to keep things on the light side while informing you that I am a male. There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. There has to be one, although it may not be called that. If there is not one, where are the files that are sent to the printer stored while they are being feed to the printer and after they have been processed by the printer driver? If there is no spooler and the file is sent directly from the program to the printer or from the printer driver to the printer, the printer will chock on the overrun because the hardware buffer in the printer itself is relatively small and can only hold a limited amount of data before it chocks and crashes. Ok, it sounds as if you have a single drive with one partition. Since you have said that you have run a defragmenting program on that drive and 18 GB of free and available hard drive storage space, it seems as though lack of free and unfragmented space is not the problem. Now that I am sure that we are using the same language and talking about the same thing I have to admit that I am at a loss for solutions and you may have to speak with someone familiar with Macs. Have you called Epson about the problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 7/11/04 4:41 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken down into and what size are they? Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how much of the space in that partition is empty or free? Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had any temporary files in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Laurie, What do you mean by read the manual? [:~[:~[:~]]] There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. I don't have multiple hard drives or partitions...unless those partitions are kept blissfully hidden away by the Mac OS. I'm now going to try to print something of the same size etc without using the new profiles. Merci, Berry -- -- 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: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
Hello, if there's anybody out there. I have a problem using PS Elements 1.0. I know there is a list for PS, but maybe one of you folks can make this easy. I have a scanned image that is 17.6 MB. I am trying to print it on an Epson 2200, 13x19 @1440dpi. I am getting an error after the printer driver has initiated, prior to anything actually going out to the printer, saying that there is not enough memory for this operation, and to close any unused applications. There are no other applications open except for the Mac Finder. I have over 180 MB of unused memory available on my Mac G4, with a total of 320 MB of hardware RAM. Virtual memory is off, but it shouldn't be needed, and I have not needed it before. I have set the preferred allocation of memory for PS Elements to 120 MB (it was at 44 MB, but I upped it just to be sure that was not an issue.) Am I correct in assuming that the size of the file that is being transmitted to the printer is 17.6 MB, which is the actual image file size on the hard drive, and the same as reported in Elements? So what has changed? I added some Epson 2200 profiles that I downloaded from Epson, and I changed a setting or two in the print setup in PS Elements. But why should any of that matter? I have printed larger files on 13x19 before, so I am stumped. Any ideas? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: not enough memory?
Hi Berry, I am not a Mac person so some terms may be different there than on PCs. If I am reading it correctly, the computer has 320 MB of RAM of which 180MB is free or unused when you go to print. You are unable to print a 17.6 MB image at 13x19 on your Epson 2200. I am assuming when you state you are printing at 1440 dpi, you mean that the printer is using its 1440 dpi mode, since a 24 bit RGB image at 13 x 19 would have to be about 160 dpi native resolution to be about 18 MB. To process an image you need two things, RAM memory to process it within PS Elements, which you have more than enough of, (most Photoshop type programs require about 4-5 times the amount of memory the image uses (including layers) to work with within the program). You seem fine there. The other thing needed, and particularly when the image is being processed to print, is a spooling area to make a rasterized image of the printable image which will then be fed to the printer. This image doesn't reside in RAM memory. However, it must be stored somewhere, and that is on your hard drive. During the printing process, this information is sent to the printer line by line. My guess if that you do not have adequate hard drive space on the drive where your spool files are created. This may be for a number of reasons. You may have had one or more crashes or hang ups while a spooled file was already residing there, and it may still be there as a corrupted partial file, although it should be cleared out when the spooler closes down . Or, you may have used up the space with other things like internet browser caches, or new programs, or other things. Again, since I am not Mac literate, I can only suggest that you find out where on your hard drive your spool area is (which drive, which root directory) and make sure there is adequate space there for the spooled file can be created. I don't know exactly how much space you need in the spooler hard drive, but since it has to be converted to a CMYK file, which makes it grow, I'm guessing you need about 25-40 megs of clear hard drive space. Depending on the operating system, you may be able to move the spooling location to another hard drive partition, if the one you are using is too full. Art Berry Ives wrote: Hello, if there's anybody out there. I have a problem using PS Elements 1.0. I know there is a list for PS, but maybe one of you folks can make this easy. I have a scanned image that is 17.6 MB. I am trying to print it on an Epson 2200, 13x19 @1440dpi. I am getting an error after the printer driver has initiated, prior to anything actually going out to the printer, saying that there is not enough memory for this operation, and to close any unused applications. There are no other applications open except for the Mac Finder. I have over 180 MB of unused memory available on my Mac G4, with a total of 320 MB of hardware RAM. Virtual memory is off, but it shouldn't be needed, and I have not needed it before. I have set the preferred allocation of memory for PS Elements to 120 MB (it was at 44 MB, but I upped it just to be sure that was not an issue.) Am I correct in assuming that the size of the file that is being transmitted to the printer is 17.6 MB, which is the actual image file size on the hard drive, and the same as reported in Elements? So what has changed? I added some Epson 2200 profiles that I downloaded from Epson, and I changed a setting or two in the print setup in PS Elements. But why should any of that matter? I have printed larger files on 13x19 before, so I am stumped. Any ideas? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
Bernie and others, I just printed an Olympus E1 test image* that was 2560x1920 pixels on my Epson 2200 printer at print size 12.5 x 16.67 (4/3 aspect ratio original image, remember) on 13x19 watercolor paper. At that size, the image is at 154 ppi. I thought that wouldn't be so great, but you know, it really looks mighty fine. Now, I don't think the test image is necessarily the best test for a fine landscape image, but still, I feel pretty confident that it would be good enough for my style of image, which is often close-up landscapes. I don't work with glossy paper, but that could well be a different story at this scale of enlargement. I didn't touch the color or anything else, and it appears to be right on. Beautiful. Berry *The test image was 4 liquor bottles in front of Kodak gray and color patch scales, with some crayons in the foreground...in case you've seen it. on 6/30/04 3:55 PM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berry, I've gotten reasonable quality prints from my Minolta DiMage S414, but there are a number of quality cameras out there now -- Oly E1, Pentax *ist (a friend just got one - impressive camera), Nikon D70, Canon's digital rebel. Check the reviews at dpreview.com or the commentaries at luminous-landscape.com. I'm waiting for Minolta's DSLR before deciding, since I have all Minolta glass at the moment. I'm hanging on to my 6x6's and 645's though -- both for darkroom and scanning on the Epson 2450 (which I'll be upgrading soon). My trusty Polaroid 4000 takes care of the 35mm stuff. Bernie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: traffic on 6/24/04 12:47 PM, Clark Guy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey, everybody! How about a lively discussion of the importance of bit depth?? How about dye clouds vs. film grain??? (I'm kidding, I'm KIDDING!!) ;-0 Guy -Original Message- From: bernard comolet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:54 PM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] traffic No more traffic on filmscanners ?? Bernard from Angoulême-France -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Maybe everybody has bought a digital camera! Seriously, I'm thinking of doing just that. But the trouble is that they keep getting better so rapidly that I find I must keep waiting! The ones I find most interesting right now are the Olympus E1 and the Sigma SD10. But the one I want may be the combination of the two. The Fovian chip is exciting, but what would you have if Olympus combined that with the E1 4/3 thing? My thinking is that there would be fewer problems if one went directly from a digital image to paper rather than having to scan film. In theory, you would have eliminated one stage in the process, and that would be greater simplicity. The final product I seek includes ~12x18 prints on watercolor paper, using an Epson 2200 Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
On 6/30/04 7:35 AM, Clark Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Digital cameras are much like computers. If you wait to buy the best one, you'll never get one! What I did was get a couple of Nikon coolpixes (950 and 990) on eBay for my wife and myself. They are old enough to be quite affordable, and they have advantages over many other cameras for my purposes (the 950 for example, can take IR pictures without internal modification with a good IR pass filter, at reasonable shutter speeds (like 1/15th second in bright sunlight) The twistable body has some advantages for shooting over people's heads. There's many accessories available for them as well. My ladyfriend has a Coolpix 4500, which is the current version of the same series. I've used it myself, and it's an impressive device. I especially like its macro/close focus ability - if I recall right, it will focus as close as an inch or two from a subject. But this digicam does not, in my opinion, compete with a good film SLR. We have quite a few vacation shots that were taken at the same spot using Cindy's 4500 and my F100. The differences are not huge, but the scans from my F100 shots look better. What is most noticeable to me, is that the highlights on the digicam shots tend to blow out more often. The tonal variations look natural as you go from shadow into brighter areas, but then suddenly there is a featureless blotch that looks like someone spilled whiteout on the image. I've read explanations that attribute this effect to the linear transfer function of the digital sensors. They saturate suddenly, whereas with film you have an s-shaped transfer function that saturates more gracefully. Perhaps the digicam sensor blowouts can be avoided by carefully setting exposure to avoid clipping. But this is not always possible. Perhaps the problem is less serious with DSLRs, since they have larger sensors, more dynamic range, etc. I'd like to make the jump to a DSLR, but I've been holding out for a quasi-affordable model with 8-12 Megapixels. Sometimes I like to make 13x19 prints, and I'm not yet convinced that the 6MP cameras can record enough data for that. -- Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: traffic
Berry, I've gotten reasonable quality prints from my Minolta DiMage S414, but there are a number of quality cameras out there now -- Oly E1, Pentax *ist (a friend just got one - impressive camera), Nikon D70, Canon's digital rebel. Check the reviews at dpreview.com or the commentaries at luminous-landscape.com. I'm waiting for Minolta's DSLR before deciding, since I have all Minolta glass at the moment. I'm hanging on to my 6x6's and 645's though -- both for darkroom and scanning on the Epson 2450 (which I'll be upgrading soon). My trusty Polaroid 4000 takes care of the 35mm stuff. Bernie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: traffic on 6/24/04 12:47 PM, Clark Guy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey, everybody! How about a lively discussion of the importance of bit depth?? How about dye clouds vs. film grain??? (I'm kidding, I'm KIDDING!!) ;-0 Guy -Original Message- From: bernard comolet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:54 PM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] traffic No more traffic on filmscanners ?? Bernard from Angoulême-France -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Maybe everybody has bought a digital camera! Seriously, I'm thinking of doing just that. But the trouble is that they keep getting better so rapidly that I find I must keep waiting! The ones I find most interesting right now are the Olympus E1 and the Sigma SD10. But the one I want may be the combination of the two. The Fovian chip is exciting, but what would you have if Olympus combined that with the E1 4/3 thing? My thinking is that there would be fewer problems if one went directly from a digital image to paper rather than having to scan film. In theory, you would have eliminated one stage in the process, and that would be greater simplicity. The final product I seek includes ~12x18 prints on watercolor paper, using an Epson 2200 Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: MInolta 5400
I haven't seen significant grain with my 5400, at least scanning fine grain film. Make sure you're using the grain dissolver. As for the color, I recommend getting Vuescan for your scanning software and use it to generate a scanner profile. Vuescan has worked much better for me than the manufacturer's lousy software with both the 5400 and LS5000, . I generally have to tweak the color a tad from the Vuescan profile, but no more than 0.1 usually. You need IT8 transparency targets to do this, available from Kodak, or Wolf Faust at http://www.coloraid.de/. You can get Vuescan at http://www.hamrick.com. BTW, on a slightly different topic, Vuescan now functions in scan from preview mode on the LS5000, as of version 8.04. Thanks for the tip, Tony. Ed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
There's been very little traffic on the forum lately. I don't think that there's any particular reason. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
Glad to see us back on the road!! Austin Smith wrote: There's been very little traffic on the forum lately. I don't think that there's any particular reason. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
Onward march of progress I guess - digital origination has taken over... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Sharp) wrote: I was wondering the same thing the other day. I even re-subscribed thinking I'd fallen off the list... -- Jim bernard comolet wrote: No more traffic on filmscanners ?? Bernard from Angoulême-France 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] traffic
No more traffic on filmscanners ?? Bernard from Angoulême-France Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: traffic
I was wondering the same thing the other day. I even re-subscribed thinking I'd fallen off the list... -- Jim bernard comolet wrote: No more traffic on filmscanners ?? Bernard from Angoulême-France Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Good $300 scanner for 35mm 120?
Actually Art, what you say is only true when talking about new dedicated medium format film scanners. There may be athe possibility of a few older models available in or around that price range as used or refurb units on Ebay or elsewhere. Ken should check Ebay as well as some of the larger used equipment web sites like WWW.keh.com, www.calumetphoto.com, www.bhphotovideo.com, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken McKaba wrote: I've just started exploring film scanners. Can anyone recommend a good one that will handle 35mm 6x6 that is $300? Will I be happy with a flatbed with a transparency attachment? The question, Ken, is what other choice do you really have witin the constraints you suggest. A 35mm dedicated film scanner for $300 you can do (the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV would probably be my suggestion at that price) but, it can't do 6x6. In fact, anything that can in a dedicated film scanner is going to set you back considerably more than $300. Therefore, the option open to you is a flatbed. Epson has several within your budget and some are quite good. The biggest issue these days is probably Newton Rings from film contacting the glass surface. It can be a bit of a problem, but there are ways around it vis well constructed film carriers. Art Thanks, Ken -- -- 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: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
You aren't alone in being unhappy about the loss of the slow films: Zeiss complains that they can't brag about as much lens resolution any more. If you are already using a tripod, you could try 645 or 6x7. I'd think that the Fuji 100F films in 645 would look at least as good as K25 in 35mm at 18x24. The problem is that my work is mostly done in remote parts of the Himalaya. It's a hassle to get even 35mm equipt to such places, let alone medium format. And I have to carry a recording rig as well, since I'm documenting the music of the communities I visit. I hope to be in Sikkim this coming Autumn, lots of thangkas to be photographed. Does Agfa still make RSX (ISO 50)? I'll have to look into this. Is it virtually grainless, like K25? *: http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/datasheet/163AR094B.pdf I see what may be going on: Astia 100F is ISO 32 under tungsten using a wratten 80A filter. Most frustrating. This pdf is Japanese only. Salutations, David Lewiston Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
From: David Lewiston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does Agfa still make RSX (ISO 50)? I'll have to look into this. Is it virtually grainless, like K25? I've never used it: it appears in a 2-year old brochure that happens to be sitting on my desk. Again, there's a Zeiss article* in which they kvetch about the demize of the ISO 25 films, so I think you are really are stuck. Downsizing your lens collection and upsizing the film size is how I'd handle it, but that's easy for me to say, since I started out in MF and never understood why people used 35mm. *: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/48D8F331DF48EE72C1256CEF002B0240 *: http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/datasheet/163AR094B.pdf I see what may be going on: Astia 100F is ISO 32 under tungsten using a wratten 80A filter. Most frustrating. This pdf is Japanese only. That's not a problem here: it popped up when I Googled for Astia and ISO 32. It's just the datasheet for Astia 100F: I'd guess there are English versions on the net if you looked around. 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: Kodachrome 25 versus?
The demise of K-25 is a shame, but I would suggest you consider looking at the Fuji F line of films. In specific, the Provia 100F is a fairly neutral film with very fine grain which scans well. It gives you a 2 stop advantage over the K-25, as well and uses standard E-6 processing. Art David Lewiston wrote: I'm getting ready for another field trip. In the past, I have always used K25 for subjects with fine detail. Imacon scans have yielded 20x prints effortlessly. K25 is no longer manufactured in the U.S. Is it still available in other countries? If it isn't, then I'll have to look for another slide emulsion that is also essentially grainless. Recommendations, please? Thanks, David Lewiston Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
on 6/2/04 6:39 PM, David Lewiston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting ready for another field trip. In the past, I have always used K25 for subjects with fine detail. Imacon scans have yielded 20x prints effortlessly. K25 is no longer manufactured in the U.S. Is it still available in other countries? If it isn't, then I'll have to look for another slide emulsion that is also essentially grainless. Recommendations, please? Thanks, David Lewiston -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Agfa RSX II is made in ISO 50 for 35mm. http://www.agfa.com/photo/products/film/professional/colorrev/ ~Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
on 6/2/04 6:39 PM, David Lewiston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting ready for another field trip. In the past, I have always used K25 for subjects with fine detail. Imacon scans have yielded 20x prints effortlessly. K25 is no longer manufactured in the U.S. Is it still available in other countries? If it isn't, then I'll have to look for another slide emulsion that is also essentially grainless. Recommendations, please? Thanks, David Lewiston -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body You can get it at BH Photo for $5.09 for 36 exposure roll. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 opinions?
HI, Jawed! My jaw'd (sorry! ;-) ) hit the keyboard if it weren't attached so firmly to my face! I am very impressed with what I saw in that review! I suppose that if I were going to be REALLY professional, I'd still want a dedicated film scanner, but evidently, this flatbed competes very favorably with any filmscanner within even a few multiples of it's price range! I may want to investigate this scanner myself (and I LIKE my scan multi!) Thanx for the info!!! Guy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:03 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 opinions? You might want to consider the Epson 4870 flatbed: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm which appears to be able to get an effective (approximately) 3000dpi out of film, and seems to have a decent ability to see through dense film. As you can see it scans eight 135 slides at a go. Jawed 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] Good $300 scanner for 35mm 120?
I've just started exploring film scanners. Can anyone recommend a good one that will handle 35mm 6x6 that is $300? Will I be happy with a flatbed with a transparency attachment? Thanks, Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Good $300 scanner for 35mm 120?
I'm going to enjoy the answers to this one. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 opinions?
From: Clark Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] HI, Jawed! My jaw'd (sorry! ;-) ) hit the keyboard if it weren't attached so firmly to my face! I am very impressed with what I saw in that review! I suppose that if I were going to be REALLY professional, I'd still want a dedicated film scanner, but evidently, this flatbed competes very favorably with any filmscanner within even a few multiples of it's price range! I think the reviews at that site make the Epson flatbeds look a bit better than they are. http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html It looks to me that the Epson is noticeably shy of 2700 dpi. That's pretty good, but for 35mm, you'd probably be better off with a real scanner. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Good $300 scanner for 35mm 120?
From: Ken McKaba [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've just started exploring film scanners. Can anyone recommend a good one that will handle 35mm 6x6 that is $300? If you need 6x6, spend a bit more money and get the Epson 4870. http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html Will I be happy with a flatbed with a transparency attachment? If your 35mm use is minimal, and 6x6 is your main camera, the 4870 may keep you happy. 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] Kodachrome 25 versus?
I'm getting ready for another field trip. In the past, I have always used K25 for subjects with fine detail. Imacon scans have yielded 20x prints effortlessly. K25 is no longer manufactured in the U.S. Is it still available in other countries? If it isn't, then I'll have to look for another slide emulsion that is also essentially grainless. Recommendations, please? Thanks, David Lewiston Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 opinions?
I have about 4,000 of my father's slides that I want to digitize. These are just vacation slides, nothing really fancy and I doubt that we would ever print anything larger than 8 X 10 if that. With so many images to scan, I can't imagine doing them one at a time, and so I've been looking at slide scanners which offer some feeding mechanism. The only two in the U. S. I've found so far are the Nikon and the Pacific Image PowerSlide scanners. The Nikon 5000ED with their new SF-210 Auto Slide Feeder from BH Photo would run about $1,600. The PowerSlide 3600 would cost about $650, about 1/3rd the price of the Nikon. But I haven't been able to find any information on the Pacific Image scanner that seems to be an objective (or appropriately subjective) review of the unit. Can anyone on this list help out, please? I'd sure like to spend less rather than more. I'm not going to be using this machine much after this project, and in fact will probably donate it to our local Seattle Audubon Society for their use. Any advice would be welcomed. Thanks! Chris Altwegg Chris Altwegg 8203 38th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone/cell: 206-523-6477 Fax: 206-523-6401 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
From: David Lewiston [EMAIL PROTECTED] K25 is no longer manufactured in the U.S. Is it still available in other countries? Not Japan. I'm pretty sure it's ancient history everywhere. If it isn't, then I'll have to look for another slide emulsion that is also essentially grainless. Recommendations, please? Fuji Velvia 100F, Provia 100F, and Astia 100F all scan well with minimal grain at 4000 dpi on a Nikon 8000, and can be printed at 300 dpi with minimal to no apparent grain. That's only 13x, though. The 100F films (especially Velvia 100Fg) are surprisingly neutral in their color rendition. (Well, Provia's famous for being a bit blue, but Astia and Velvia 100F are fine.) I'm not sure about 20x enlargements though: I consider 13x seriously excessive. (Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a grain sniffer.) I've been very happy with Velvia 100F, but you should shoot a few test rolls before the trip. 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: Kodachrome 25 versus?
Many thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure about 20x enlargements though: I consider 13x seriously excessive. (Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a grain sniffer.) Imacon 5600 dpi scans from K25 make grainless giclée prints at 18 x 24, from somewhat less than full frame, hence 20X. Necessary for museum shows, where the prints look truly impressive. (Using Canon on a solid tripod with the macro 50mm well stopped down, the subject carefully illuminated.) I'm anxious to retain this capability in future work. I see that Fuji offer Astia in 32 ASA. Is this close to K25 in grainlessness? Thanks, David L Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome 25 versus?
From: David Lewiston [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure about 20x enlargements though: I consider 13x seriously excessive. (Hi, my name is Dave, and I'm a grain sniffer.) Imacon 5600 dpi scans from K25 make grainless giclée prints at 18 x 24, from somewhat less than full frame, hence 20X. Necessary for museum shows, where the prints look truly impressive. (Using Canon on a solid tripod with the macro 50mm well stopped down, the subject carefully illuminated.) I'm anxious to retain this capability in future work. You aren't alone in being unhappy about the loss of the slow films: Zeiss complains that they can't brag about as much lens resolution any more. If you are already using a tripod, you could try 645 or 6x7. I'd think that the Fuji 100F films in 645 would look at least as good as K25 in 35mm at 18x24. I see that Fuji offer Astia in 32 ASA. Is this close to K25 in grainlessness? Not in Japan*. Does Agfa still make RSX (ISO 50)? *: http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/datasheet/163AR094B.pdf I see what may be going on: Astia 100F is ISO 32 under tungsten using a wratten 80A filter. 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: Lines in scans
What software are you using? I sometimes get the lengthwise lines using Vuescan with a Minolta Scan Multi Pro, and the usual remedy of deleting vuescan.ini clears it. Colin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of C Stirling Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. I've been watching this discussion as relativly receantly I have also started getting these lines on my SS4000. In my case they are in the direction of scan, 1 pixal wide but don't always seem to occur. They seem more likely the longer the scanner has been on (a few hours +), seem to occur in similar location but I've not yet measured this. Most obvious in darkish areas but not in totally black areas. I wondered if it could be dust on the CCD and did some dismanteling for cleaning but not all the way down to the CCD. I don't know if this helped. So its been interesting hearing views that it might be electronic noise. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans
What software are you using? I sometimes get the lengthwise lines using Vuescan with a Minolta Scan Multi Pro, and the usual remedy of deleting vuescan.ini clears it. I'm using Vuescan from about a year ago. I can't try any experiments at the moment as the power supply has just died on the computer and I may use the oppertunity to change cases. It sound hopeful that it might not be a bad CCD in the scanner as I hear others talking about software, cpu cycles and emf as possible other causes (of course it might also have been my PSU on the way out). I'll have to do more experiments when its all back up and running. Charles Stirling Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans
Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. I've been watching this discussion as relativly receantly I have also started getting these lines on my SS4000. In my case they are in the direction of scan, 1 pixal wide but don't always seem to occur. They seem more likely the longer the scanner has been on (a few hours +), seem to occur in similar location but I've not yet measured this. Most obvious in darkish areas but not in totally black areas. I wondered if it could be dust on the CCD and did some dismanteling for cleaning but not all the way down to the CCD. I don't know if this helped. So its been interesting hearing views that it might be electronic noise. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans
I wasn't clear in my prior post. The lines are there in Polacolor 8 and 16 bit scans and in Silverfast 16 bit scans. They are not there at all in any VueScan scans nor in Silverfast 8 bit scans. Your throughput theory is interesting but the fact that VueScan 16 bit scans are fine seems to eliminate that. I sent some info to Polaroid last night and am now waiting to hear from their tech people... Thanks for your help! Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 26, 2004 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans The fact that they only appear when doing 16-bit scans using the Polaroid software makes me think that it is not an EMR issue but a data throughput problem. It would seems that twice as much data is being transferred over the SCSI connection during 16-bit scans and the problem could be that a buffer is overflowing periodically causing garbage or dropouts to be written to the image file. I've never really used Polaroid's software, only Vuescan and occasionally Silverfast, and I've never seen this particular problem myself. At least you can use Vuescan as a fallback while Polaroid's tech support works this one out. Scott -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Maugham Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans Scott, Thanks for your input. My scan lines are running across the frame, i.e. perpendicular to the scan direction. In addition, they are evenly spaced on the frame. I don't believe it's the scanner (hardware problem) as they only appear when doing 16 bit scans. They are not present on 8 bit scans nor are they present when scanning with VueScan. One Polaroid tech thought it was because I have service pack 4 on my Windows 2000 but another tech denied that and said it was because my scanner is on top of my PC and the emr from my PC was interferring with the scanner. I moved the scanner but the lines continue. Polaroid is now elevating the issue. What fun!!! Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 25, 2004 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans Your scanline problem sounds like an issue with Polacolor and/or your CPU and SCSI interface, but I'll relate a similar problem I had with my scanner anyway: I had to send my SS4000 back to Polaroid right after I bought it a few years ago to fix a scanline problem. I was seeing single pixel dark scanlines in the scan direction. There were 8 or ten, always in the same location and distributed randomly across the image and across color channels. Polaroid replaced the CCD. Lately I've been seeing these again and suspecting dust on the CCD, I disassembled my scanner, unbolted the daughter card on which the CCD is mounted and cleaned the cover glass with Pec-12 solution (pure alcohol). Since the front surface mirror was exposed, I also carefully cleaned it by blowing as much dust off of it as I could. A really dusty mirror will lower your image contrast. I don't really recommend anyone try this unless you an afford to trash your scanner :-). Anyway, this got rid of many, but not all, of the scanlines. It could be that some of the CCD cells are failing or dust somehow got under the cover glass, I suppose. Scott Robertson -- Scott L. Robertson Photography Travel, Editorial, Assignments Prints www.slrobertson.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans Thomas Maugham wrote: Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. There are about 12 lines evenly spaced. Interestingly, when I use VueScan the scans are fine. Can anyone PLEASE shed some light on this? Could be some other process stealing CPU cycles. It's ages since I've used Polacolor (VS works better for me), but did have the problem at one time though I can't now remember what the culprit was. 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 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans
Thomas Maugham wrote: Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. There are about 12 lines evenly spaced. Interestingly, when I use VueScan the scans are fine. Can anyone PLEASE shed some light on this? Could be some other process stealing CPU cycles. It's ages since I've used Polacolor (VS works better for me), but did have the problem at one time though I can't now remember what the culprit was. 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: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600, 3600dpi, Automated,35mm, Slide
Tony Sleep said the following on 5/24/2004 11:27 AM: Clive Moss wrote: Does anyone have any experience with the Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 Slide Scanner? ... AIUI this is a close relative of the same model Kodak sold for a while as the RFS3600, without any great success. Manf. for them by Pacific Image, as a development of the not-very-nice Primefilm 1800i. Not bad exactly, but mediocre optics, a tendency to banding, cheap build quality plus poor software meant few people bought it despite the low price. Unusually capable of scanning an entire uncut roll of 35mm, but no take-up spool so it just got dumped on the floor. ... Thanks -- not very encouraging. I guess I will pass. This model can take take slide cartridges, I believe. -- Clive http://www.pbase.com/chmoss/root Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans
Scott, Thanks for your input. My scan lines are running across the frame, i.e. perpendicular to the scan direction. In addition, they are evenly spaced on the frame. I don't believe it's the scanner (hardware problem) as they only appear when doing 16 bit scans. They are not present on 8 bit scans nor are they present when scanning with VueScan. One Polaroid tech thought it was because I have service pack 4 on my Windows 2000 but another tech denied that and said it was because my scanner is on top of my PC and the emr from my PC was interferring with the scanner. I moved the scanner but the lines continue. Polaroid is now elevating the issue. What fun!!! Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 25, 2004 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Lines in scans Your scanline problem sounds like an issue with Polacolor and/or your CPU and SCSI interface, but I'll relate a similar problem I had with my scanner anyway: I had to send my SS4000 back to Polaroid right after I bought it a few years ago to fix a scanline problem. I was seeing single pixel dark scanlines in the scan direction. There were 8 or ten, always in the same location and distributed randomly across the image and across color channels. Polaroid replaced the CCD. Lately I've been seeing these again and suspecting dust on the CCD, I disassembled my scanner, unbolted the daughter card on which the CCD is mounted and cleaned the cover glass with Pec-12 solution (pure alcohol). Since the front surface mirror was exposed, I also carefully cleaned it by blowing as much dust off of it as I could. A really dusty mirror will lower your image contrast. I don't really recommend anyone try this unless you an afford to trash your scanner :-). Anyway, this got rid of many, but not all, of the scanlines. It could be that some of the CCD cells are failing or dust somehow got under the cover glass, I suppose. Scott Robertson -- Scott L. Robertson Photography Travel, Editorial, Assignments Prints www.slrobertson.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans Thomas Maugham wrote: Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. There are about 12 lines evenly spaced. Interestingly, when I use VueScan the scans are fine. Can anyone PLEASE shed some light on this? Could be some other process stealing CPU cycles. It's ages since I've used Polacolor (VS works better for me), but did have the problem at one time though I can't now remember what the culprit was. 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 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] Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600, 3600dpi, Automated, 35mm, Slide Scanner
Does anyone have any experience with the Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 Slide Scanner? I found a couple of non committal mentions in Google Groups, and a couple of negative reports elsewhere. It is attractive because it provides reasonably priced batch scanning of slides - but only if it works! -- Clive http://www.pbase.com/chmoss/root Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600, 3600dpi, Automated, 35mm, Slide
Clive Moss wrote: Does anyone have any experience with the Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 Slide Scanner? I found a couple of non committal mentions in Google Groups, and a couple of negative reports elsewhere. It is attractive because it provides reasonably priced batch scanning of slides - but only if it works! AIUI this is a close relative of the same model Kodak sold for a while as the RFS3600, without any great success. Manf. for them by Pacific Image, as a development of the not-very-nice Primefilm 1800i. Not bad exactly, but mediocre optics, a tendency to banding, cheap build quality plus poor software meant few people bought it despite the low price. Unusually capable of scanning an entire uncut roll of 35mm, but no take-up spool so it just got dumped on the floor. 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: OT: The joy of software upgrades... (Adobeedition)
on 05/14/2004 09:18 AM ?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?= said the following: Keeping a separate proxy just to accomodate this program seems a bit backward to me. Hmm, why have the originals in the archiving software at all? Thumbnails and meta information should be enough, the rest can be on any medium, be it CD, DVD or HD. The DB is just one sophisticaed access path to it. Works well with IMatch. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Lines in scans
Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. There are about 12 lines evenly spaced. Interestingly, when I use VueScan the scans are fine. Can anyone PLEASE shed some light on this? I never noticed this before as I have always used VueScan and just started to experiment with Polacolor and Silverfast. Thanks... Regards, Tom Maugham Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] large scanners
Hello, can anyone suggest where to start, I need a large scanner, ideally 20x24 but perhaps a bit smaller may work. It definitely needs to be larger than A3. I can use USB, FW, or SCSI. I have macs. Any ideas? thanks tom robinson Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanners
Goggle large, format, and scanner under Google's Advanced Search function and stand back. You're talking about real money here, however. Epson's 11x17 color scanner is almost $4K US. The Google search will return scanners up to 50 wide. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Thanks Re: Best 35mm slide film?
Thanks everyone for your slide film recommendations. I think I'll start by trying Astia. A friend with a Nikon 4000ED (the scanner I'll be using) says this has a wide exposure latitude and scans well.If I find it too flat then I'll try Provia next, then Velvia last. --Bill -- == 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] Silverfast and Polaroid SS4000
I have Silverfast 5.0 which came bundled with my Polaroid Sprintscan SS4000. I never used Silverfast but decided to try it. I installed it on my PC which has Windows 2000 Pro and it seems to work fine except that I can't seem to tell it which frame to scan, it defaults to only the first frame. Can someone please point me to where I might find where I can select the frame? 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: Understanding dpi
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 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger image than the 2000 dpi model? Thanks for clearing this up, Bill Bill, try to think of it this way. If a 2000-dpi scanner renders a given negative as an image composed of a single dot (.) then a 4000-dpi scanner would render the same negative as an image composed of four dots, two over two (difficult to display on an ASCII list, but, if the formatting cooperates, something like this): .. .. So, if you blew up both images in Photoshop, say, to where you were able to work with individual dots/pixels on the screen, the image from the 2000-dpi scanner would afford you just one dot (screen pixel) of scanned information to edit (manipulate) from any given area of the scanned negative whereas the image from the 4000-dpi scanner would afford you four dots (pixels) of information to edit (two dots across and two dots down). This difference (fourfold) often represents a significant difference for critical editing work with regard to printing pictures (the kind we actually hang on our walls) at larger sizes (I'm not talking 4x6 stuff here). For purposes of display of the final image online somewhere, this difference, when boiled down to real-world constraints, may or may not be relevant (visible). It just depends. An example of where this added (4x) dot/pixel information comes in handy: let's say you've sharpened (USM has been a recent topic of interest) an image with someone's face the center of attention, and you're left with some unattractive artifacts around the nose. It would be easier to go into (blow up) the 4000-dpi image and smooth out (or if you will, more attractively _blend_) those nose artifacts than it would be to do the same thing with the 2000-dpi image for the reason that with the 4000-dpi image you would have four times the information (four dots/pixels) to work with as opposed to just one. It's impossible blend one dot/pixel. All one can do is change any given unit to something else, yes? On the other hand, with _four_ dots/pixels to work with the possibilities for change are relatively much more various. Hope that helps. And yes, I often do go into my work and manipulate intransigent dots/pixels one by torturous one. (I may not be especially talented but I always get an A for effort. g) Tris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
