[filmscanners] RE: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
Tony, I do agree that we should trim posts of older postings; but I also suggest that some of us participate in many lists and are faced with responding to more than 100 posts a day which can result in the rush to complete our responses we may forget to trim the posts. A little reminder like you gave every now and then when it gets bad is all that is necessary usually. In the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the offending post which appeared later than the message from you. I am sorry but I read his complaint as being about my writing style, since not trimming older posts from a current post is not a matter of verbosity which is what he was complaining about. As for the digest and its limitations, I think it is a matter of compromises. To get the digest, subscribers give up the ability to delete individual posts in exchange for receiving all the messages in one large posting. I would think that if the size of the single posting that the digest generates becomes too much of a burden, they could always switch to individual emails. Why should those of us who are not signed up to receive digest posts change in order to accommodate digest users so as to make things convenient for them at our expense rather than digest users switching to individual emails? I have to wonder what would happen to their convenience or with respect to the other factors you have mentioned if traffic became really heavy with long involved posts of new information rather than previously posted untrimmed messages and/or when a large number of the posts on such a digest happen to be of little interest and consequence to the particular individual digest subscriber. At any rate, I will attempt to remember to trim my posts of old messages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting, not on Laurie's writing style as such. Art has a point that members of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs traffic concatenated into one large message. That becomes quite impossible to read and grows exponentially as a result of repeat unselective quoting. I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted bandwidth and the server brought to its knees ;) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
This may be an issue how how Vista is marketed in the UK. In the US, there is Vista Ultimate, which comes with 64 bit vista. Ultimate is one of the numerous editions of Vista (it is the top of the line edition that contains all the components some of which are not included in the other editions); it, like several other editions of Vista, is available in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista. This is the case in the U.S.; and I believe it is the case for the UK as well. The one edition that is not available in the US but may be in other areas of the world is the Basic edition. I do not believe that either the Basic or Home Editions are available in 64 bit(they are only available in 32 bit versions); but the rest of the editions are. A few version of 32 bit Vista allow the purchase of the 64 bit edition. I believe that one can upgrade from one edition to an edition higher on the food chain at a special case - except for the Basic Edition. It may also be possible to upgrade from a 32 bit to a 64 bit version in the same edition at no extra charge or at a special price; it may be also possible to change from a 32 bit version of one edition to a 64 bit version of a higher level edition at a special case. However, I do not know all the ins and outs of these kinds of upgrades. In my case, I have X64, which I suppose you could call X64 XP. Microsoft calls is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition They call it that because it is Windows XP Professional Edition in the 64 bit version. :-) Vista also has a Professional Edition in both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista This may be an issue how how Vista is marketed in the UK. In the US, there is Vista Ultimate, which comes with 64 bit vista. A few version of 32 bit Vista allow the purchase of the 64 bit edition. In my case, I have X64, which I suppose you could call X64 XP. Microsoft calls is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx All this gets more confusing when you consider retail versus OEM versions. Anyway, X64 is not Vista. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary, I have not used Vuescan of recent so I do not know if the current versions require or not the factory driver to be installed; I was under the impression that Ed did not rely on Twain drivers but developed his own proprietary driver as a substitute for the OEM TWAIN drivers. As for Vuescan under X64, I cannot speak to its stability since I have not tried recent versions of Vuescan under X64; moreover, I suspect, given what you suggest, it might work without crashing if one used SCSI via an adapter card in a slot on the motherboard rather than USB (if SCSI cards work in the X64 Vista OS and if there is ASPI layer available from Adaptec or elsewhere that will work with X64). In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is Server 2003 kind of stripped down. But for non-server tasks, it does have it's issues. Also, X64 is a dead end. MS wants you to use Vista, but 64 bit Vista is a mess. As you probably know, there is a rumor that MS is going to replace Vista soon, i.e. it is like Windows ME (the minus I question these statements. I do not believe that X64 Vista is a stripped down version of Server 2003 (X64 XP might have been but that is a different OS than Vista). Vista X64 does have some problems when used as a server or as a non-server; but much of it has to do with the availability of X64 drivers, with printing in mixed X32 and X64 networks, and with the availability of hardware and firmware that can make use of some of the newer features. I do not think that Vista X64 is dead or the rumor that you say is going around has any truth in it. It is true that MS is working on developing the next Windows OS which can be regarded as a new version of Vista (whether it will be called Vista 2.O or by a new name as happened in the case of the move from XP to Vista, I do not know). I think that people may be confusing the switch from using a single name with version numbers for a software program to the use of different names for each version without using version numbers with replacing or abandoning the program. Even Adobe has started renaming its programs from Photoshop or Illustrator version x, y, and z to Photoshop or Illustrator CS, CS2, and CS3 without employing version numbers. I do know that MS decided that they would not issues a Service Pack for Vista that is like what they did with XP where it almost comprised a total revision of the program from start to finish; instead, they would only issue service packs that fix bugs or security problems, leaving the addition or alteration
[filmscanners] RE: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
Tony, You may be correct about film scanners using a SCSI-2 interface; but I believe that my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi (the original version) was SCSI-1. At any rate, I noted that the specs say that the converter/adapter supported only a SCSI-2 interface just in case there were film scanners that used a different interface or people who might be thinking about connecting some other SCSI device to the adapter or to the daisy chain. There were and are still firewire - SCSI converter/adapters on the market; and evidently were - if not still are - USB2 - SCSI converter/adapters as well as USB 1.1 - SCSI converter/adapters on the market. USB2 is just as robust if not more so than Firewire; it was USB 1.1 which was not as robust as Firewire. But now, Firewire, under its various names, comes in a number of different flavors and speed capacities. The original spec was a 400; a new spec was introduced that was 800 or double the capacity. Firewire is used by many digital cameras as their connection to the computer of choice, although there are now a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and number of pins - 4 pin and 6 pin configuration connectors in use. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evidently, this adapter/converter still is on the market; but it works only with SCSI-2 from what I have been able to determine. As far as I know, all filmscanners that appeared with SCSI interfaces used SCSI2 standard, even though they only achieved SCSI1 speeds 1-3MB/sec across the bus. I'm not a Mac person, but I thought there were Firewire-SCSI converters too, and that was a more robust solution than USB-SCSI because FW and SCSI are more closely related. Or have the latest Mac's dumped Firewire too? Leopard seems to have been Apple's Vista! -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.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: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
Gary, I have not used Vuescan of recent so I do not know if the current versions require or not the factory driver to be installed; I was under the impression that Ed did not rely on Twain drivers but developed his own proprietary driver as a substitute for the OEM TWAIN drivers. As for Vuescan under X64, I cannot speak to its stability since I have not tried recent versions of Vuescan under X64; moreover, I suspect, given what you suggest, it might work without crashing if one used SCSI via an adapter card in a slot on the motherboard rather than USB (if SCSI cards work in the X64 Vista OS and if there is ASPI layer available from Adaptec or elsewhere that will work with X64). In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is Server 2003 kind of stripped down. But for non-server tasks, it does have it's issues. Also, X64 is a dead end. MS wants you to use Vista, but 64 bit Vista is a mess. As you probably know, there is a rumor that MS is going to replace Vista soon, i.e. it is like Windows ME (the minus I question these statements. I do not believe that X64 Vista is a stripped down version of Server 2003 (X64 XP might have been but that is a different OS than Vista). Vista X64 does have some problems when used as a server or as a non-server; but much of it has to do with the availability of X64 drivers, with printing in mixed X32 and X64 networks, and with the availability of hardware and firmware that can make use of some of the newer features. I do not think that Vista X64 is dead or the rumor that you say is going around has any truth in it. It is true that MS is working on developing the next Windows OS which can be regarded as a new version of Vista (whether it will be called Vista 2.O or by a new name as happened in the case of the move from XP to Vista, I do not know). I think that people may be confusing the switch from using a single name with version numbers for a software program to the use of different names for each version without using version numbers with replacing or abandoning the program. Even Adobe has started renaming its programs from Photoshop or Illustrator version x, y, and z to Photoshop or Illustrator CS, CS2, and CS3 without employing version numbers. I do know that MS decided that they would not issues a Service Pack for Vista that is like what they did with XP where it almost comprised a total revision of the program from start to finish; instead, they would only issue service packs that fix bugs or security problems, leaving the addition or alteration of features to the next OS. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista Often Vuescan needs the factory driver to be installed. A few devices Ed can drive directly. BTW, Vuescan under X64 is not all that stable. Expect a crash every other roll. It has to do with how X64 handles USB. In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is Server 2003 kind of stripped down. But for non-server tasks, it does have it's issues. Also, X64 is a dead end. MS wants you to use Vista, but 64 bit Vista is a mess. As you probably know, there is a rumor that MS is going to replace Vista soon, i.e. it is like Windows ME (the minus edition). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could try Vuescan; or you could go to the Epson web site and see if the scanner software is downloadable/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Ketcheson Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista I have acquired an Epson 1200 Perfection Photo Scanner but did not get the software. Would anyone know what was originally with this scanner and have any idea where one could find the appropriate software. I also have the Epson 3200 Perfection series but the software is not interchangeable. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim Ketcheson Belleville, Canada James L. Sims wrote: Laurie, My plan is to keep a 32-bit machine around for the SS120 and My old Epson Stylus Photo 1200. Then upgrade my main computer to XP 64. An Epson tech told me last year that that he could send me the 64-bit drivers for my Epson 1640 scanner, however, I didn't ask him to do that and I still do not see a 64-bit driver, twain or otherwise, on Epson's website - that seems to support what you're saying about 32-bit Twain drivers working on 64-bit systems. Epson does have 64-bit drivers for my R2400. After I upgrade to a 64-bit OS, I'll try installing the Polaroid drivers on the new system. Thanks, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, Most of the scanners up until currently used TWAIN drivers and there were no universal 64 bit TWAIN standards
[filmscanners] RE: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
There use to be a SCSI to USB adapter (XircomR PortGear USB To SCSI Converter - PGSCSI, U1-SCSI) put out by Xircom (www.xircom.com or tel.: 800-438-4526), which I believe was an Intel subsidiary. I believe it was a SCSI 1 version of SCSI (the first version of SCSI) that would work for Mac OS 8.6. I do not know if it is still available - I doubt it, if it will work with later Mac OSs - I doubt it, or even if Xircon is still in business. I do remember that it was expensive as compared to other types of adapters. You may be able to find it on ebay. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] SCSI support on a Mac Pro I currently am using my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 on a Windows computer with an installed SCSI card. I am about to buy a new eight-core Mac Pro. Is it possible to run the SCSI sprintscan on a new Mac machine? Are there adapters now to allow SCSI devices to connect to USB or FireWire ports? Suggestions? Stan --- - 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] color bit depth and digital cameras
I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f (35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two. Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image is very blue. I use a long pass filter (optical) to reduce some of the haze. A bit more OT, but I've discovered that so called UV filters don't really remove much UV. I have a flashlight made of 380nm UV leds, which I use as a test source. If you aim the UV at a phosphor screen (such as an oscilloscope), the screen will glow. This allows me to make a crude UV filter test. The run of the mill camera lens UV filters are a joke. My glass is from Andover, and it really kills UV. [Haze is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength, so a little filtering helps a lot.] Schott Glass makes two UV filters in camera rather than astronomical sizes. I plan on getting one of these for use in high altitudes, where UV is really strong. James L. Sims wrote: Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Since I have not used VueScan in years, I have to take your word on that; but white balance/color temp is a very significant element in many cases along with exposure that I use Camera RAW for which is not available from within Photoshop. But I think we are on t he same page and not really in any major disagreement. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most of the automatic processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings, saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with things that are done with Camera RAW applications. The biggest advantage to camera RAW over a scanner DNG is the ability to change color temperature/white balance info. The rest is pretty analogous to operations possible with any image in Photoshop. For instance, I just opened up a shot I took of fireworks last night with my D200. Going through the panes I can control White Balance, Temp and Tint. Then Exposure compensations, including brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. In the next pane I can control tone curves. In the next I can add sharpening. In the next I can convert to grayscale with HSL tweaks. In the next I can do split-toning with Highlight and Shadow controls. In the next I can correct lens geometry and CA. The next is camera color profiling and the final pane is for presets. Really, the only thing I can do with Adobe Camera RAW that I can't do with a DNG from VueScan is adjust the white balance from raw sensor data. The rest of it works just about the same whether I'm adjusting a scan or a NEF. -Rob --- - 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 and scanning vs digital photography
David, Remember that this discussion started with my attempt to explain why Getty and other high end stock photography houses might insist on professional drum scans over high end prosumer CDD scanners. The main justification is that they know the quality that their clients demand but they do not know the exact range of uses and sizes that will be used by the clients who license the image or if and how the image may be cropped when used at the users given enlargement size. We are not talking about the differences you might see at the size enlargements that you prefer or about your tastes concerning grain and grain structure in an image. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J. Littleboy Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels. I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. I've never seen a drum vs. 4000 ppi Nikon comparison that I thought showed a ntoiceable or significant advantage to the drum scan. The differences are very much on the order of counting angels on heads of pins. And the 12.7 and 16MP Canons look a lot more like 645 than 35mm, in terms of print quality at 12x18. (This guy is printing a lot bigger than I would, and thus is agonizing over really minor differences.) http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Rob, Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and can be set to compensate. Is that only for Olympus brand lenses or does it apply to third party lenses like Sigmas and the like? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote: While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length, aperture setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in any given lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens. Since most DSLRs allow for interchangeable lenses and lenses made by varying manufacturers, it is probably not reasonable to expect the camera to be able to compensate except in a generalized way for light fall off produced by any particular lens. Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and can be set to compensate. I used to have an E-1. I don't know how smart the lenses are, but I know that sometimes I'd get notifications from the Olympus studio software that one of my lenses had a new firmware update available, so apparently the lenses had more than just an ID residing in their circuitry. I personally never used the Shading Compensation because the E-1 was slow enough already. When DP Review tested the E-1 they got these write timing numbers: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page10.asp 2560 x 1920 SHQ with no filter 2.0 sec 2560 x 1920 SHQ Lens Shading compensation 18.9 sec Nearly ten times slower write speeds using lens shading compensation was enough to scare me away from it for keeps. Interesting idea, though. -Rob --- - 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 and scanning vs digital photography
With respect to lenses, the only lenses that I know of that have adjustable elements for compensating for field curvature and producing effective, although not complete, flattening are flat field copy lenses and true macro lenses. I will not comment on silicon sensors except to say that no matter how flat they may be they certainly will be effected to one degree or another by the optics of the lens in the digital camera or scanner in the case of CDD scanners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has to be better than the lottery of film. Tony Sleep wrote: On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.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: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. This is not exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white light, saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the user can then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop. The VueScan raw file that I knew was a standard formatted image file which was exported to an image editing program where the user could do corrections, manipulations, and enhancements typical of such programs but not the same as one can do in the Camera Raw reader applications. But things may have changed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob --- - 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 and scanning vs digital photography
You may be right. The commercial drum scanners are much more flexible and complex allowing for very subtle adjustments and corrections via much more complicated software that often requires a trained, accomplished, and experienced scan master to make full use of - sort of like a pressman on an offset press. Most prosumer scanners and software allow for as much control as does the drum scanner hardware and software; and most prosummers do not want to take the time to learn the steep learning curve involved in mastering the ins and outs of such control. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kersenbrock Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable at all in some cases. And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible. Mike K. --- - 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 and scanning vs digital photography
When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you seemed to be referring to. True; but this automatic processing may include a few of the things that one manually controls when using a Camera RAW application to interpret the image data values. However, for the most part with respect to these things, it uses defaults in the automatic processing; but most of the automatic processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings, saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with things that are done with Camera RAW applications. Thus by storing a file directly from the CDD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post capture, you are not really dealing with the interpretive processes that one is manually dealing with when processing a Camera RAW file in a Camera RAW application. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. Correct. You can also save the VueScan data as an Adobe DNG file, which allows for lossless compression and a considerable space savings over 16-bit uncompressed tiff files, which may seem trivial, but when scanning color 6x7 transparencies at 4800 dpi the output is 13,376 x 10,676 and around 260 meg in size. DNG can pull that back to around 175 meg. This is not exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white light, saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the user can then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop. All true. When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you seemed to be referring to. Obviously it's more time-consuming. I find that the RAW files from VueScan can withstand a considerable amount of tweaking in Photoshop before they start to show visible artifacts. Obviously much more than most pre-processed scanner output. Of course, they don't look as appealing right out of the scanner, which may put off more casual users. -Rob --- - 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 and scanning vs digital photography
This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as a JPEG. Technically we are in agreement; I oversimplified in order to avoid confusion. The image information is transmitted from the lens to the analogue sensors to an A/D where it is converted into digital data, which is then further processed and saved as a standard image file format like JPEG or TIFF. This represents a first generation capture and is equivalent to capturing the image information to film, which is also a first generation capture in my terminology. When one scans film or prints, one is doing something similar to what one does when one captures image information with a digital camera; only this time one is capturing already captured analog image information that was captured on film or in a print and digitalizing the previously captured analog information, which makes this capture a second generation capture in my terminology. Hope this clarifies things and suggests that we are not in disagreement. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a second generation capture. This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as a JPEG. You are correct that this same process occurs with a film scanner, so there are extra translations going on (Film image (and all that entails to get to that point) to electro-optical sensor image to digital file format. Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of uncertain origins? I would give Getty's requirements more credibility if they didn't limit the digital cameras to certain models and brands, but rather stated a resolution and sensor size (since noise is an issue). Or what about ISO for that matter. A D200 image at ISO 1600 may be equivalent to a smaller (physical sized) sensor at ISO 200 in those terms. Art --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
I do not know for sure; but I do not believe that this is correct. I think that both DSLR Camera RAW image data values like raw scanner image data values are just that - raw uninterpreted data values for the various elements. I do not know if the raw color space that digital cameras and scanners capture to is RGB, L*A*B*, or some other color space; but I think both digital cameras and scanners associate all the color values for a given pixel with the pixel location that it is located with and that DSLRs do not map only one color value per pixel location. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post processing required to get RGB at every location. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob --- - 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] film and scanning vs digital photography
One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
The DSLR digital camera's mentioned are all the higher end models of their respective manufacturers as well as among the more current models in the pipeline. Their being selected probably has as much to do with the degree of noise and distortion of their sensors as the number of megapixels that they are capable of. I am equally sure that there is also an industry bias towards certain camera brands and models over others just as there is for certain medium and large format digital backs over others. This is not new and existed with film cameras as well where the premier brands were Nikon, Canon, Hasselblat, and Sinar or Deerdorf over Pentax, Olympus, Bronica, Mamiya, and Calumet. The film scanners are all drum scanners or the equivalent which are high end industry workhorses use to produce high quality and resolution scans from film sized 35mm to 8x10 or larger. The file sizes of the scans may be 100MB or so per scan and the bit depth at which these scanners scan is far greater than flatbed or sensor chip based film scanners. The Nikon 5000 and the equivalent film scanners may be the top of the prosummer line of film scanners; but it is not the top of the line scanner by industrial commercial standards. Moreover, there probably is a biased belief that professional commercial scans will b e done by professional craftsmen who specialize in scan with the equipment that they use and know how to get the most quality out of that equipment where prosummers - no matter how good or competent - do not scan for a living and probably nopt as likely to produce flawless scans. There is also probably a histroric legacy industry bias among the curators, archivists, and operators of up-scale stock houses in favor of drum scanners and certain professional commercial scanning houses, who they have worked with before. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison. The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does not need to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second external process. A 35mm film capture's quality after scanning will depend on the film uses, and how it was processed, for starters, and the scanning of the film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture with the possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components during the scan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista
There are, at least, three different SCSI types with each having its own connector. There is SCSI I, which I believe yours is, SCSI II, and SCSI III. At one point you use to be able to get adapters that would go from SCSI I types of connectors to SCSI II types of connectors; but I am not sure if they are still available. You should check out places like Cables to Go and Cables Unlimited on the web; they may still have charts of the different SCSI connections and connectors on their site as well as sell some of the cables and adapters. For a SCSI adapter card, you can contact Adaptec. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista You're right Charles my Adaptec card hasn't got vista support, thanks for the link. Another question, does any one know if the external connection on the SCSI card that came with my Nikon LS30, is a standard SCSI external connector ? What I mean is, if I bought a new SCSI card would the external connector be the same. I have tried to find information about connectors, but can't really pin anything definite down. I think that the connector on my card Adaptec AVA-2902 is a DB-25 ?? Thanks again for all of the replys, David. - Original Message - From: Charles Knox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:54 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista I just noticed your postings, else I'd have weighed in earlier. Your problem may well just be that you have a SCSI adapter that isn't supported by Vista - not all that many are, apparently, and if Vista can't run the card then obviously it won't run anything that's attached to it either. I'd suggest you check here for Adaptec models that are supported, then see if you can pick one up used - they're not usually expensive now. http://adaptec-tic.adaptec.com/cgi- bin/adaptec_tic.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.p hp?p_faqid=14790 Several Adaptec models are natively supported and Adaptec list downloadable Vista drivers for a few more. Unfortunately I no longer have any SCSI gear to experiment with - passed my SS4000 on some time ago (well, there is an old Epson GT8500 gathering dust in the back room) and the couple of times I've looked at Vista just made me shudder and uninstall it. Maybe in another year or so... At 04:00 PM 10/06/2007 +0100, you wrote: Thanks Tony and Arthur for the replies, I e-mailed Ed. and according to him also, it should work. I had no luck. Even though I've tamed Vista to my liking, this is the only thing I can't do. As the Scanner plugs into the SCSI card it presumably has to have a driver to work. I've googled and seems like nobody has been able to get a LS30 to work with Vista. A shame really, as although I'm digital, Canon DSLR I still have a few years worth of slides to scan, so I'll have to keep XP until I've finished. David. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista Can you use Vuescan, which seems to have gotten around the SCSI api and OS issue? Art -- - - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 10/06/2007 1:39 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 10/06/2007 1:39 PM --- - 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: Nikon LS30 Vista
I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 II running under X64 (precursor to Vista). It is USB interfaced, so SCSI isn't exactly an issue. However, technically ASPI is still required. This is a problem with X64 (probably Vista, but I have no first hand knowledge of this). With a bit of googling, I found a thread on how to install the 32 bit ASPI on a 64 bit OS. Adaptec has little interest in supporting ASPI. David wrote: Thanks Tony and Arthur for the replies, I e-mailed Ed. and according to him also, it should work. I had no luck. Even though I've tamed Vista to my liking, this is the only thing I can't do. As the Scanner plugs into the SCSI card it presumably has to have a driver to work. I've googled and seems like nobody has been able to get a LS30 to work with Vista. A shame really, as although I'm digital, Canon DSLR I still have a few years worth of slides to scan, so I'll have to keep XP until I've finished. David. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista Can you use Vuescan, which seems to have gotten around the SCSI api and OS issue? Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon LS30 Vista
As a note, at this point in time, there are little by way of drivers for scanners (or printers, for that matter) on the market for Vista X64 OSs - or for that matter XP X64 OSs. As for ASPI Layers, Microsoft also is displaying little interest in supporting them in the future - especially for X64 systems. I have been able to get a Umax Powerlook II SCSI flatbed Scanner to work under Vista X32 using the old XP X32 Twain driver that came with scanner without problems; but that X32 bit driver will not work with an X64 bit OS. I have to wonder if your X64 Vista system even recognizes the SCSI card - let alone the scanner attached to it. If it does recognize the SCSI card, than the ASPI layer may not be the problem; the scanner driver may be the problem, since it probably is a 32 bit TWAIN driver. There never has been, I am told, a 64 bit twain driver written for public release. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 II running under X64 (precursor to Vista). It is USB interfaced, so SCSI isn't exactly an issue. However, technically ASPI is still required. This is a problem with X64 (probably Vista, but I have no first hand knowledge of this). With a bit of googling, I found a thread on how to install the 32 bit ASPI on a 64 bit OS. Adaptec has little interest in supporting ASPI. David wrote: Thanks Tony and Arthur for the replies, I e-mailed Ed. and according to him also, it should work. I had no luck. Even though I've tamed Vista to my liking, this is the only thing I can't do. As the Scanner plugs into the SCSI card it presumably has to have a driver to work. I've googled and seems like nobody has been able to get a LS30 to work with Vista. A shame really, as although I'm digital, Canon DSLR I still have a few years worth of slides to scan, so I'll have to keep XP until I've finished. David. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista Can you use Vuescan, which seems to have gotten around the SCSI api and OS issue? Art --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
remove and replace the SCSI terminator block. If the scanner is chained with other SCSI devices, remake the connections at all of them. Trying a different terminator will also be worthwhile. Tony- Thanks for your advice. I have some questions about the SCSI terminator block. My SS4000 has two ports in the back. One is a 50 pin SCSI connector through which the scanner is connected to the SCSI card in my computer. The other port is a 25 pin SCSI port and has nothing connected to it, and so far as I can remember, never has. Next to this second port is a switch marked SCSI termination on/off. Am I correct in my assumption that so long as this switch is turned on, the scanner is internally terminated and no terminator block is needed? The scanner documentation makes no reference to a terminator block, and simply says to turn termination on when the device is at the end of a SCSI chain. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
-Included Message-- Date: 9-Jun-2007 01:06:25 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography (I think the objective consensus would settle on a 10mp equivalence with 35mm film at 100 ISO, and 8 mp at 400 ISO). In my case, I got still further improvement in image information and detail moving from 4000 dpi to 5400 dpi (and these weren't even drum scans) From what I saw in my scans and from DSLR's, it was not until you got to 10 mp that image quality was really comparable (note, that I usually am shooting at ISO 100). A few weeks ago I tried an experiment. I took an image that I took in full sunlight with Provia 100 film with a Nikon N90s camera and 70-300 mm Nikon zoom (of the World War II Memorial in Washington DC). I scanned it at 4000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner, giving a 5,375 x 3,546 pixel image. When I enlarge the image I do see some irregularities which might be film grain, but I can't tell for sure because I don't know what film grain looks like. I then used bicubic resampling to reduce the image to the size of a Nikon D200 image ie. 3,872 x 2,592 pixels (10.2 megapixels- the equivalent of scanning at 2881 dpi). I put the two images side by side on my dual monitors and zoomed down to a fine image detail (a person standing near the monument). Although the pixels were clearly larger in the latter image, it didn't seem to me that any image detail was missing. This would seem to be consistent with the objective consensus claim that 35 mm film at ISO 100 is equivalent to 10 mp, but it would also suggest that there is no benefit to scanning film at resolutions higher than about 3000 dpi. This conflicts with claims that it is beneficial to scan at 4000 dpi or higher resolutions. Am I likely seeing the limitations of the optics of my scanner rather than of the information capacity of the film? Anybody know how well the optics of the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 compares with those of Konica-Minolta or Nikon scanners? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
16mp 1Ds MkII is the one I recall the camera LL said matched film. I haven't bought into the 22mPixel rumor. I was told by someone who attended the photo show in Vegas that it was announced. Beyond that, I have no knowledge of the camera. I'd be plenty happy with the Mk II. I attended a show by IIRC Fred Larson of the San Francisco Chronicle. This was the camera the Chron thought replaced film. [They made some corporate decision about two years ago to dump their Nikons and go all Canon. They used to have a mix of bodies.] Astia 100f pushes well, though you can see increased grain if pulled a stop. Half a stop gets you a little edge without much of a grain issue. The claim (i.e. I have no first hand knowledge) that some fashion photographers prefer film IF there is an issue of aliasing. The MKII was about $4k+ last time I looked. There is obviously a price break point for film versus digital. I'm doing about 30 to 40 rolls a year. I probably haven't hit the break point, but someone who shoots for a living easily could pay for the MKii in a year. One thing for sure, the EOS1HS I got a few years ago will be my last new film body. I still like to do some telephotography with my F3 due to the ability to put a magnifier on the screen. I'm trying to convert my EOS film body to that task, but the removable prism is such an advantage. [I'm really getting tired of fixing the old F3, and I think now Nikon won't refurb it.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say as good as, you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
I tried cleaning my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 with the included brush, but couldn't figure out how to pop the top off to look for dust because there were no screws. I also re-installed the driver. It booted 3 times in a row, but only if turned on during rather than before booting the computer. On the fourth attempt it didn't work (ie. the amber light didn't blink, so it apparently didn't initialize), but on the fifth attempt it worked again. The problem is apparently intermittent. Anybody have any ideas on what would cause that? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
I have been having a problem with my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner. Polaroid technical support hasn't been very helpful, so I'm wondering if someone out there might have experienced this problem and know something about the cause/solution. When I turn my scanner on, the green and yellow LED lights on the scanner come on and remain on solidly. Normally, during start-up the yellow LED blinks, which according to Polaroid documentation, means the scanner is initializing. When I boot up my computer and open Polacolor Insight, it can't detect the scanner if the yellow light hasn't blinked. I have intermittently had this problem before, but am now having it consistently. When the scanner is operating normally, the yellow light doesn't blink if the scanner is turned on after the computer has already been booted. So, I'm wondering whether there might be some problem involving communication between my computer and the scanner, possibly involving my SCSI card. If I have to send it to Polaroid for repairs, they will charge $400 to $660 to repair it, almost as much as I paid for it in the first place. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
Thanks for the suggestions about my Polaroid SprintScan. I got home too late tonight to try them, but will soon. This list is much more helpful than Polaroid tech support. I also have some questions on another matter. I'm considering buying a Nikon D200 digital camera, and I'd like some opinions on the relative merits of film followed by scanning vs. digital photography. Are there still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning over going fully digital? (I'll still need to have a working scanner anyway, because I have lots of old slides that I haven't scanned yet). I do lots of macrophotography (mostly butterflies and dragonflies), as well as landscape photography and would especially appreciate comments on the relative merits of film plus scanning vs. digital photography for these sorts of applications. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] large scanning project
I recently decided to try submitting some of my photography to a stock photography company. They asked me for an initial submission of 100 or more of my best slides as digital scans. This is a much larger number of scans than I have attempted for any previous project. If I succeed in selling these images to them, I have many more that might be suitable that I will need to scan. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner which scans at 4000 dpi and 12 bit color depth. Unfortunately, it has no infrared channel based system for removing dust specks from the images. I am spending way too much time with the healing brush deleting dust specks from each image to get 100 scans done in a reasonable amount of time. I'm considering several approaches to solving this problem, and I would like advice from others about what to do. The first solution I've considered is finding a reasonably fast and effective way of physically cleaning the dust off the slides. I tried Rexton Anti-static film cleaner applied to the slide with a q-tip cotton swab. This didn't seem to work too well, and it tended to leave cotton fibers on the slide. there seems to be a fair number of small spots or specks, possibly something other than dust specks that are still adhere to the slide after cleaning with the Rexton cleaner. Are there other approaches to cleaning the slides that I should try that might be reasonably quick and effective? A second solution I'm considering if buying a new scanner with an IR channel, such as Nikon's Coolscan V ED with digital ICE. At the time I bought my SprintScan, scanners that both scanned at 4000 dpi and had an IR channel were beyond my price range. The Coolscan V now sells for the fairly reasonable price of about $600.00. Can anybody comment on the quality of Digital ICE vs. trying to clean the slides physically? Can anybody comment otherwise on the relative quality of the Coolscan V vs. my SprintScan 4000? Nikon's software for removing the effects of film grain, for example, sounds quite impressive. One possible disadvantage of the Coolscan V ED is that its slide feeder apparently only holds one slide at a time, whereas the SprintScan's feeder holds up to 4 slides at a time. This is a significant concern, since my main reason for considering a new scanner is to save time on large batches of scans. The Super Coolscan 5000 ED has a 50 slide feeder available as an accessory (but unfortunately, the Super Coolscan costs $1100, and the SF-210 50 slide feeder costs about $400 extra). The standard MA-21 single slide feeder for Super Coolscan 5000 ED is identical to that used on the Coolscan V ED, yet Nikon's website doesn't list the SF-210 50 slide feeder as compatible with the Coolscan V. Can the SF-210 slide feeder be made to work with the Coolscan V ED? Is there a third party multi-slide feeder that works with the Coolscan V ED? Thanks for any advice that you might be able to provide. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Calibration issue
so it does not seem to be the light output itself, but maybe falloff in the optical system. I assume this scanner uses a florescent tube for illumination, have you tried taking the tube out and reversing it? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Calibration issue
No, but the result is the same whether you are using the light in the transparency unit (the lid), or the built in light in the base (for prints). But the question is, shouldn't calibration take care of this? I thought that was what calibration did. I'm not all that knowledgeable on these things, but had wondered if the tube was producing the uneven illumination. If its both then it sounds more like it could be the mirror or a lens is dirty. I've always assumed calibration was on the total sensor array not point by point. Here is where we need an expert to come in :-). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning slides and negs prior to scanning
In days gone past i used to store my best slides in pocketed plastic pages in ring binders. This used to give me huge problem with dust. I have now stopped doing this. I figured a less efficient filling system was better than man years of dust spotting in PhotoShop! So, what is this less efficient filling system that keeps dust from being a problem? Charles Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: How to label CD backups Tim
Secol are a very reputable company for archival storage materials here in the UK. They supply many of the museums with materials. Most of the products they sell (all of which to my knowledge they manufacture themselves in their own factory) are made from inert polyester (usually Mylar D) Yet another UK source of archival products (imported from the US) but at lower prices is of course http://www.7dayshop.com/ . They have the Clearfile range of slide and now CD storage envelopes. Charles Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Next Cycle of Scanner Tech
Anthony Atkielski wrote: What's wrong with existing scanners? He later wrote: If you wait for the perfect scanner, you'll end up with no scans at all. The above statements are inconsistant. They are also inaccurate. (For example, I currently own a Umax Powerlook III and a Polaroid SS4000. They both yield good scans. Nevertheless, I continue to wait for the perfect scanner) ;-) Joyfully, -david soderman- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flatbeds for 6x6 negs.
Allesandro Pardi wrote: By the way, how would you flatbedders rate 6x6 or 6x7 scanned this way versus 35mm fed to 4000dpi filmscanners? I moved to 6x7 to get better prints, but haven't decided on a scanner yet, so I'd like to know whether this new breed of flatbeds is enough to give justice to the higher format or if I have to start saving my pennies for a true MF filmscanner to see the difference. Allesandro, First of all, my Umax Powerlook III is far from being a new breed of any kind. It's a SCSI unit that's several years old now; an eternity in the wacky world of digital imaging. ;-) I suppose you *could* call it's contemporary sibling, (the firewire version), more of a new breed. Then there are the latest Epsons which *are* part of the latest breed of flatbeds. My experience is limited to my Powerlook III, a Polaroid SS4000, the Nikon 8000ED and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. Rather than compare the flatbed to a 35mm filmscanner, I suggest comparing the flatbed/MF negs...to the MF filmscanners/MF negs. Of course, it really all depends upon what you wish to use your MF camera/scanner combo to ultimately make. Outputting small prints? Large? Etc. Personally, I use my MF camera to make photographic prints up to 30x40. I use my MF camera/flatbed scanner combo to make prints up to 11x14. (I provide an 8x10 file. My lab prints directly onto photo paper with a Kodak L.E.D. or Lightjet printer.) But that's using a 1200 ppi flatbed scanner. I could go much larger with one of the new breed of MF filmscanners. The downside of using a flatbed scanner for negs is usually the software. Also, the resolution is usually lacking. Sharpening is always needed. Plus, much more of a hassle trying to keep two sides of the scanning glass clean...and two sides of the tranny adapter glass clean. (the absence of ICE can really amplify this malady) Then there's the occasional encounter with the dreaded Newton Rings. The upside of using a flatbed scanner for negs is that the scanner's focus has never been a problem throughout the frame. Also, I've found the scans to be very fast using VueScan. (good quality, too). And because the resolution is lower, the problem with dust, scratches, neg imperfections, etc. is much lower. All in all, I'm still quite happy with my Powerlook III for what I personally do. Then I dabbled in the new breed of MF filmscanners. I tried the Nikon 8000ED and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. Each one has its strong and weak points. One thing they have in common is that the higher resolution generates the need for ICE. (And even ICE wasn't enough for the Minolta!) Another common trait is the much more lengthy scan times. Also, faster cpu's and much more memory and storage space is a must. To summarize, I would venture to say that the MF filmscanners are *clearly* superior in resolution/clarity. I would go on to say that this superior resolution seems to come at the expense of other problems. (banding, poor focusing, noise/grain, etc.) How much of a problem it is can only be answered by you. For me, it was enough to wash my hands of the latest breed of MF filmscanners altogether. My humble opinion to you is to wait for the next new wave of them. Hopefully many lessons were learned by the engineers. I would keep my eyes peeled for the next MF Nikon scanner. Joyfully, -david soderman- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Sat 20 Apr, 2002
We will be unable to answer email until late Sunday. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
re: filmscanners: Canon FS 4000 or Kodak RFS 3600
Didn't use the Canon. Used the Kodak. Stay away from it The scanner is not good. First of all, there is no way to get 10 bits per second as the scanner claims it it. It always comes out 8bits/channel. That is not good. Also, the histogram looks terrible after you get the image. There are presets for few filkms, and they are pretty much all Kodak films. In addition, Vuescan does not support it. When you insert a strip, it takes couple minutes for the software to finish calibrating per strip. Then you have to do an autofocus. THis scanner has major autofocus problems. The only positive thing about is that you can scan a whole roll, but scanning strips is a pain. IN addition, even if you scan a roll, the color balance is usually really bad so you spend a lot of time correcting each image. YOu usually get soft images, because of the focus problem. When you ask it to prescan a whole strip, it asks you if you want to autofocus. You say yes. Then it scans the first frame and stops. So you have to go back and tell it to prescan the whole frame again. Idiotic programming. Somebody wrote in his review - We ended up with the feeling that each time if we got the best possible scan YOu spend hours everytime because you are not sure if what you got is the best possible. It also amplifies every little imperfection (dust scratch) on the negative. I sold it on ebay and got SprintScan 4000. Much better, much faster. It took me 5 minutes per frame with the Kodak. STAY AWAY Get either the SS4000 or the Canon. SS4000 does not amplify the dust as much as other scanners anyway. --- Dar all: After 30 years of chemical photography, I am begininng with processing. Here in Buenos Aires, we can by Nikon (very expensive), Canon and Kodak film scanners (at aprox, 1000 u$s). Canon looks very friendly, while Kodak was hard to set up for a Kodak technician in a recent Show. Canon has FARE technology but Kodak claims that a complete 36 roll of 35 mm can be scanned unatended. I will appreciate any comments before a buying decission. Regards Jorge Talkowski http://members.tripod.com.ar/talko
filmscanners: silverfast 5.5, worth it?
I am thinking about upgrading from the default silverfast version that came with my SS 4000. I scan mostly negatives. Do you think the upgrade is worth the $45? Also, I heard there was a free upgrade for SS4000 customers. Is this true? thanks! -e
filmscanners: Flat (uncontrasty) T400cn and Vuescan, Silverfast
I shot some pictures this weekend using t400CN color bw film and it was very overcast (I live in Portland, OR)! I am trying to scan them with my Polaroid SS 4000, using Vuescan, Silverfast, and Insight. a) Because it was a overcast days, the light was great for details, but it was also flat, which is good but combine that with T400cn bw film's orange mask and you have a very flat scan. How can I improve this using Silverfast or Vuescan? The negatives come out really grayish with not much strong blacks. When I increase contrast the white's disappear. I tried curves etc. I can fix this per image but it is very time consuming. I want to get a profile that I can use with some minor adjustments. b) Is it worth it to upgrade to Silverfast 5.5? Is there a special deal for Polaroid users? I just installed the one that came with the scanner. I shoot mostly negatives. I already have Vuescan (Thanks Ed! Great software). I find that sometimes one software gives me better results thatn the others. I am trying to get consistently good results for automated processing later. c) Is it possible to scan an entire strip with Vuescan automatically? http://graphicssoft.about.com/library/weekly/aa0104jpegmyths.htm
filmscanners: SS4000 rebate, valid other places?
The coupon at Ecost.com and pcmall seems like it is generic. Can I buy it from, say Cameraworld.com and use the same coupon? No other place has the rebate coupon. evrim
filmscanners: Kodak RFS3600 - 12bits and focus?
Is there a way to get 12 bits out of this scanner? The histogram looks not very smooth. Also did anybody else had problem with the ofocusing of this scanner? My negatives stored in sleeves is pretty flat, but still i get softscans. What is your methodology for getting sharp scans with this scanner? -e
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan/Vuescan/Negs
Ed, Thanks for the input. I was using v7.1.14. Upgraded to .17 and the improvement is VAST. BTW -- the generic film settings worked minimally better than the Kodak/Royal/100 Gen 2 setting. Thanks again for helping me use my favorite piece of software! Dave In a message dated 9/30/2001 11:52:18 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yesterday I was experimenting with fill flash (still haven't gotten it completely down yet) and decided to go w/neg film for it's extra latitude. Kodak Royal Gold 100, to be exact. A bit contrasty, but I like it. The scans coming out of the SS and Vuescan are horrible! 1) Make sure you're using VueScan 7.1.17 2) Try setting Color|Color balance to Neutral, White balance or Auto levels 3) Try using all-default options (except for #2) Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Sprintscan/Vuescan/Negs
Hello! Brand new member to the list here. Y'all seem neat smart and all that... :) I'm having a bit of a problem with my SS4000 and Vuescan and negatives that I'm hoping someone can help with. I've been on enough lists to know that my question has probably been asked answered 100 times, but... :) I normally shoot RDPIII and scan with the hardware/software above, and have been very happy with the combination. Great color, saturation, contrast, etc. Yesterday I was experimenting with fill flash (still haven't gotten it completely down yet) and decided to go w/neg film for it's extra latitude. Kodak Royal Gold 100, to be exact. A bit contrasty, but I like it. The scans coming out of the SS and Vuescan are horrible! Extremely cyan, dark and flat. I've tried tweaking just about every setting in Vuescan to no avail. I can, for the most part, correct the final scans in Photoshop, but am thinking that I'd be better off starting with a scan that was much closer to what it's supposed to be. Thinking initially that this was a hardware problem (burned out or weak lamp), I tried one of my standard RDP trannies and the results were as good as ever. This eliminated the hardware issue... Is this a common problem? I can scan negs on the Scan Dual II and the dreaded ES-10S and have decent output, but the SS (which is the best scanner I've used to date) seems to almost ignore the neg masking. Any ideas or do this, you silly guy comments? TIA! Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
John, I have no experience with the SilverFast software but absolutely LOVE Vuescan for trannies, at least. I'm an experienced scanner but new to the SS4000 myself. I've spent $40 on far less useful things. :) Hamrick software has a full featured demo you can d/l from www.hamrick.com that you can try. Paying for registering the software will get rid of the diagonal lines the demo puts on the output. Good for a test drive before you buy. HTH -- Dave I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works well. Thanks, John in OKC
RE: Re: filmscanners: Film grain vs 2700 DPI scan resolution
Frank, the biggest single improvement in my photo technique these last couple of years was giving up on generic ISO 200 negative films. I took a different approach...I use MF. I can shoot Tri-X till the cows come home, developed D-76 1:1, and they look very good IMO. I know that's BW, but I'm sure that the same would apply to color. I do really like shooting 35mm, but anything I really want to scan, and expect better than 8x10, I've resigned my self to MF. Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ .
RE: Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make 13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless you take a 6x loupe to the print, you wouldn't see anything looking like grain. Austin, I forget, what scanner are you using? --Berry A Leafscan 45. 5080DPI for 35mm, and 2540 for 6cm wide film. Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ .
RE: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all. The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had be defined at 300ppi. Julie only needs to "re-define" the resolution (or image dimensions) without "re-sampling" the bitmap. I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the web for us to see, that is just silly. The only way to make a 50M image reasonably viewable (say 800x600 @ 100DPI) on the web is to resample it. That renders it pretty much useless for any type of detailed image comparison, which was my point. Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ .
