[filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)

[Alan Tyson]

I understand why Ed has gone to html pages for the 'manual'.
Speaking as a former 'Help' author, I know that's it's a
major task to keep a complete conventional Help file
maintained and updated, when changes are occurring all the
time. Obviously it's less important than the program itself,
when you're a one-man show, and you have to prioritise.

Nevertheless I really miss the proper Windows Help file that
we used to get with Vuescan, because you could readily
free-text search the whole lot, and use the full indexing
power of Windows Help. This is not easy to do in the current
html format so far as I can see.

My own solution is to have kept the Help file from Vuescan
7.2.2, on my 'Start Menu' next to 'Vuescan 7.5.5'. This
contains almost everything I need to refer to, and a bit of
intelligence enables me to guess the answer for current
versions.

Regards

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Op's <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:53 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's
future)


Les Berkley wrote:
>
> To repeat, VueScan DOES have a manual. Not a great one,
but hey, someone
> tell me about a great software manual!
>
> Les
>

Ed has been offered by several on the group to help write a
manual for Vuescan but to no
avail.

Maybe because Vuescan is  still in its development stage no
manual would ever be complete.

rob




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

Re: filmscanners: Album software

[Alan Tyson]

Paint Shop Pro 7 has a facility called "print multiple
images" that does most of what you require, but you'd have
to create the captions as separate images using PSP7's text
tool.

- Original Message -
From: Ian Boag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:33 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Album software

filmscanners: Re**n: Rescans and archiving

[Alan Tyson]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my answer of 26th
June.

AIUI, emulsions such as C41, E6, and ordinary colour print
papers have the  dyes synthesised not in a chemical factory,
but in situ in the emulsion during processing. 'Colour
coupler' molecules in the emulsion and the oxidation product
of the
colour developer link together to give a long molecule with
the desired colour. This is a remarkably clever bit of
chemistry.

In contrast, in Kodachrome and Cibachrome processes the dye
molecules are presynthesised in one piece. In Kodachrome
they are diffused into the emulsion during processing, and
in Cibachrome, the unwanted dyes are selectively bleached
out during processing.

It is thus inherently easier in the latter processes to use
permanent dyes; the colour chemists have fewer constraints
because they don't have to meet the requirements of
developer chemistry as well as everything else.

Regards,

Alan Tyson

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:05 AM

> I've heard that too, although I don't understand what
difference it makes
> when the dyes are added!
> (but I can see that it does)
>
> Rob

Re: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus

[Alan Tyson]

I'm a Freeserve user, yet I've had these messages. I spotted
the offending virus-containing message as dodgy and deleted
it immediately on arrival.

Regards,

Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Steve Greenbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:13 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus


> I've noticed several e-mails about viruses on this e-mail
list non of which
> I seem to have received. On further investigation I have
discovered that my
> service provider Freeserve (cheap & almost cheerful) will
not allow "dodgy"
> attachments such as "*.exe" or "*.vbs" they just bounce.
Harmless  files
> such as jpg can be attached as normal. They do not
advertise this point
> probably for fear of a breach of security but the policy
clearly exists.
>
> eg. This is what happens if you attach .vbs :
>
> 
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or
more of its
> recipients. The following address(es) failed:
>
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> This message has been rejected because it has
> an apparently executable attachment "SM1.VBS"
> This is a virus prevention measure.
> If you meant to send this file then please
> package it up as a zip file and resend it.
> 
>
> This strikes me as rather sensible all round.
>
> It's not in the interests of the users or service
providers to have viruses
> generating large volumes of traffic, using zip tends to
make users think
> twice about opening the file and will at least prevent
automatic
> propagation.
>
> Much as I am against the idea of a "net nanny" this seems
to be a very
> sensible idea - forcing the use of a zip file will usually
reduce the
> bandwidth requirement too.
>
> Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers
that they should
> impliment a similar scheme.
>
> Steve
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help

[Alan Tyson]

I'm assuming you're shooting on neg film. Different problem
if slides.

I would get the cheapest possible 6x4 photographic prints
made and scan those on any old cheap flatbed scanner,
several at a time, to provide the laptop proofs (or take the
album of prints and not scan them at all until you have to).
This will be enormously less time and hassle than towsing
with your filmscanner.

Then use the filmscanner on the ones you want to do nicely.
You may find that it's difficult to beat the enprints
anyway, without taking quite a time, unless you're doing big
enlargements. Many parents may be happy with final prints
straight from the flatbed-scanned images, and you don't need
especially high quality for the web page.

This may seem disloyal to the list, but I really *am* an
enthusiastic and regular filmscanner - it's just that it's
extremely time-consuming to achieve high quality or to do
large numbers of images.

Regards & good luck,

Alan Tyson

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:12 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help


> Have Polaroid .>
> ..shoot kids ice hockey each weekend (Nikon F5 &
300/2.8) for our
> team.  Want to scan photos to zip and display on laptop at
rink for parents.etc

Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software

[Alan Tyson]

> BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality
A3 sized print
> (about 260-270 dpi
> and that size)

Yes, if it's an inkjet print, because the printer resolution
is less than this (approx 200dpi sent to the printer). But
remember you may wish to crop a frame, and still print at
A3, so you might need more pixels.

OTOH, it depends on what you mean by 'quality A3'.

If you mean something against which, after cropping and
printing with less than 200ppi, keen amateur photographers
will press their noses and loupes and be hypercritical, the
answer is "no".

If you mean something that will impress less critical
friends and relations when hung over the fireplace and
viewed from several metres away, you can go much bigger than
A3 (at least A2) with 2700 ppi and still have satisfied
customers.

Regards, good luck, and have lots of fun,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Alex Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software

Re: filmscanners: FW: DIGITAL CAMERA SCANS

[Alan Tyson]

Title: FW: DIGITAL CAMERA SCANS



I have copies of a friend's results using an modest 2yr old 
Sony consumer digital camera on a 6x6 Hasselblad slide, and they're excellent, 
so I expect an upmarket digital camera on a 35mm slide would be pretty good.  

 
As usual, it depends how fussy you are.
 
Alan T

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  peter.phipp 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:43 
  PM
  Subject: filmscanners: FW: DIGITAL CAMERA 
  SCANS
  Has anybody any results from using a high quality digital 
  camera in a slide copier to make an instant digital image?  It occurs to 
  me that using a digital back on a hasselblad would work rather well 

Re: filmscanners: VueScan tutorial?

[Alan Tyson]

I suggest reading Vuescan's own Help file right through,
using the Browse buttons (>>). It's concise, and everything
is there. I think there are fewer than 50 pages, and quite a
few of those are details of scanners, so it doesn't take
long. If you have a raw scan file saved on disk, you can
experiment with it at the same time to observe the effects
of the controls.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Film Scanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan tutorial?


> Sorry if this is a repeat question.  Is there a VueScan
posted step-by-step
> tutorial somewhere on the net.

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range

[Alan Tyson]

I set my default Vuescan buffer to 20%, on the grounds that
that's the sort of thing most of us live with quite happily
in centre-weighted exposure metering systems (grins & ducks
while hoping that endless off-topic discussion on
centre-weighted meters does not ensue).

However, I've never got round to asking Ed whether the
buffer value is b% or 2b% of the linear dimensions or b% of
the frame area. I don't think it matters so long as
unrepresentative and unimportant objects near the edge are
eliminated.

The beauty of Vuescan is the ease with which you can twiddle
things and try them out if you don't like the result. This
was easier in the olden days when many of the controls were
on a single screen alongside the preview. However, I've now
got used to the big preview & the tabs, and do much more
twiddling in Vuescan before going elsewhere.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Alan Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Majordomo leben.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:34 AM
Subject: re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic
range

>BUFFER on one of the tabs, crop on the right hand side
of the controls.  Vuescan defaults to 2.0, I move mine up to
5%.
>
>>  user friendly if the exposure algorithm
automatically applied a buffer which blanks out the outer
10% of the image
>>  Julian

Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)

[Alan Tyson]

Roger,

I have seen something similar recently (5K Scanwit/Vuescan
positive clip attached) on a neg film processed in a
brand-new Kodak minilab in my local Tesco store. The bubbles
on mine are about 140 microns diameter (15pixels @ 2700ppi),
but I can't tell the size of yours without knowing how the
pixels on your Coolpix at 400x relate to the real world. I
note that I've got some lenticular shapes, and yours are all
circular in profile, so maybe they're different phenomena.

I attributed it to air bells, and haven't used that minilab
since. In fact, having seen the insides and watched the
routine maintenance of some minilabs when I worked on their
waste treatment a couple of years ago, I don't normally use
supermarket minilabs at all.

Are you sure your final double-distilled rinse is a good
idea? When I did my own 20yrs ago, wetting agent was deemed
necessary to give an even liquid film during drying.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Roger Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)

> under my microscope and cranked up the magnification to
> 400x. The enclosed Nikon Coolpix 995 image taken through
the
> microscope shows what I saw. This is an area of the slide
which is
> almost transparent - the orange area at the bottom shows
the film
> grain. The bubble-like flaws are in a different plane from
the grain,
> on the outside layer of the emulsion. I can tell this by
where I have
> to focus the microscope to see them.
> I developed the film myself, using double distilled water
for
> the final rinse.


<>

filmscanners: Re: Autoexposure problem in Vuescan

[Alan Tyson]

I have taken to leaving a deliberately blank frame on every
film in order to scan it for the mask. Sometimes I find
Vuescan's results better with these settings, and sometimes
not; I have to try it and see. Perhaps this is because I
have a Scanwit, on which Vuescan can't control the exposure.

BTW, after suffering a processor's lost film mixup,  I also
photograph another frame from the computer screen showing my
name & address (and a bit of Ed Hamrick's Vueprint test
chart).

Regards,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:11 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Autoexposure
problem in Vuescan


> > .The problem is that VueScan is expecting there to
be some
> > part of the scanned image to be somewhat unexposed.  If
> > you're taking pictures of the sky, the negative is
usually
> > quite dark and VueScan mis-computes the color of the
orange mask
>

Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries

[Alan Tyson]

>I've heard rumor that these canned air
>products might not be good for film, but so far
>I've had no visible problem.

As you say, care is necessary to avoid squirting propellant
on the film. Another hazard to avoid is chilling the film
and causing condensation to appear. The spray will be rather
cold, so we shouldn't overdo any single squirt. This is easy
for me because I'm too mean to buy another can very often.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Bill Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries

Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries

[Alan Tyson]

David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001
13:57:58 -1000
>
> ...buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my
negs and
> tranies you understand) and don't have a dust problem.

Alan T says

Last time David L suggested this, I tried hard to buy one
from many pharmacies and surgical suppliers in NW England/NE
Wales, without success. I did, though, have many
entertaining conversations following quizzical looks.

> For those in London, you can buy them in John Bell &
Croyden, Mortimer
> Street. Maybe big Boots store have them too. They lasty
for years and
> really are just as powerful as Dust Off.
>

Thanks to David L for the tip on a London supplier. Boots
etc don't have them round here. For readers fortunate not to
have been intestinally ill lately, I could also mention that
enemas these days are, I am led to understand, administered
with single use throw-away packs.

I had some success blowing from a carefully dried plastic
bottle of the washing-up liquid type, but which had
contained deionised water.

However, after some experimentation, I have returned to
restrained use of canned 'air'. Jessops "Clean-Aer' is 6
ukpounds for a big refill can (360mL), and the propellant is
butane. If you negotiate you may get the nozzle thrown in
free, but it's a supposed to be a fiver.

- Original Message -
From: David Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Filmscanners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan Problem

[Alan Tyson]

JASC hasn't taken compression/decompression of 48-bit images
seriously because PSP can't work with them. If you do load a
48-bit image you can only save it as 24-bit. For 'serious'
users (which doesn't include me) this is a bad drawback, and
means you're stuck with Photoshop or similar.

I used to use PSP5 as a viewer from within Vuescan, but it's
not necessary any more because (a) Ed put a good viewer in
Vuescan, due to popular demand, and (b) PSP7 loads much more
slowly than PSP5 on my antique (2-yr old) 400MHz Pentium II,
meaning it's an excellent 24-bit editor, but a useless
viewer.

As a *viewer*, Ed Hamrick's *Vueprint* is pretty well
unbeatable, and it's included in the Vuescan licence.

ISTR (seem to recall) that you'll find Photoshop's
compressed tif files may be readable in other programs, but
they're sometimes bigger than the uncompressed ones, so they
load more slowly, anyway.

If you trawl the archives for this list you'll find we last
discussed these issues in February 2001, I think, in the
context of a long argument about jpegs vs tifs.

Maybe those viewers that don't read Ed's compressed 48-bit
files have just lifted a compression/decompression routine
from someone else, without understanding it very well.

Regards,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE:
filmscanners: VueScan Problem


> Ed wrote:
> > VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a valid
predictor.  All 2 means is
> > to take the difference between adjacent pixel values
before compressing.
>
> I don't understand.  If a predictor of 2 is invalid why
would you use it?
> The error I get from PSP is "A predictor of 2 is only
supported
> for LZW compression on 8 and 24 bit images".  Obviously
it's a 48bit
> LZW TIFF from Vuescan which causes this error.  An
uncompressed
> TIFF opens fine.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography

[Alan Tyson]

Ian,

Ignoramus?
Rubbish!
Take a Nobel Prize, or at least a D.Sc for having done the
experiment; tried it out!

I have a friend with a digicam who keeps finding out things
like this. He's a professional who likes to do things
properly for the paying customers, but will also do the
experiments. You and he are the folk who're really at the
sharp end of practical modern photography.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Ian Boag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -
wedding/commercial photography


> Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a
ignoramus dives in. I
> have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from
the 70's which I
> guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average
taxi driver.
>
> I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy
interpolation
> that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I
believed that. The
> point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly
acceptable, although my
> scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and
HP S20 film
> scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but
that's not the
> way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi.
>
> Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the
misfortune to be
> followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer.
Printed some A2 stuff
> off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright
it's not the same
> as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I
assume). Was pretty
> damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed
from 10 cm (who
> views this size print at from 10 cm anyway).
>
> I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is
about the equiv of
> a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res
on the paper of
> about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I
just have to tell my
> eyes that  :)
>
> Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light
box using 5
> diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro
mode. Purists
> should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results.
>
> I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a
pic of this
> quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under
glass and framed up
> nice.
>
> Cheers Ian
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: re: filmscanners: Vuescan

[Alan Tyson]

Not all versions of Vuescan behave the same with respect to
SCSI refreshes. I had the following exchange with Ed on
3Mar01...



> I notice that in the current Vuescan v6.7.5 on Win98, I no
longer have to
> refresh the SCSI interface if I switch on my Scanwit 2720s
scanner after
I've
> started the computer.
>
>  This is a valuable feature, about which I haven't heard.
Have I missed an
> announcement, or did it happen a long time ago?

Ed said

I don't recall doing anything to make this work (I didn't
even know
that it worked).  I suspect it's some side effect of some
Microsoft
code that I call to get a list of scanners.



On all recent versions I *have* had to do a 'refresh' after
switching the scanner on. I'm now on 98SE instead of Win98,
but I don't think that's anything to do with it.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Alan Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Majordomo leben.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:45 AM
Subject: re: filmscanners: re: filmscanners: Vuescan


> Windows 98SE updated to the nines
> an adaptec 2902E which uses the actual 2902E drivers, not
the...
 etc.

Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000

[Alan Tyson]

Frank,

I bet you're right, and this explains the wide divergence of
view here on Scanwit multiscanning accuracy which we've
discussed at least twice over the last year or so.

If using Herm's subtraction method to identify
discrepancies, the experiment to do is to compare several
different single pass images with a single multipass
composite. The smallest differences found would be the
nearest to the errors introduced by multiscanning, but this
still might exaggerate them, unless one of the single-pass
images happened to start in the same place on the frame as
the multipass one.

Does this make sense?

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:24 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000


> Actually scanning the same image twice is not exactly the
same as multipass
> scanning in Vuescan - I wish Ed were here to answer this,
but I recall a
> post he made where he described using the "course"
positioning stepper to
> position to the frame and the a "fine" stepper to
scan/multi-scan.
>
> So, If you actually scan twice the course stepper must be
used to position
> twice which is not as accurate.
>
> (maybe?)
>
> /fn
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Herm
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000
>
>
> the way to test is to scan the same image twice, then
subtract them from
> each
> other in photoshop.. if you get all black then its ok,
usually you will see
> a
> few defects. I will include an example so you can see it.
I inverted the
> image
> so you could see the differences.
>

Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000

[Alan Tyson]

When I've tried multiscanning on my 2720S, I've found it
hard to detect any degradation. Misalignment is of the order
of one 2700 ppi pixel on mine, or less, so it wouldn't
bother most
people. I can see it might mess up star locations.

Regards,
Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Herm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000


> appears is the key word, I do astrophotography and even
the slightest miss
> alignment will show double stars in the final product. It
really depends on how
> picky you are.

Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02

[Alan Tyson]

I use PSP7.02 routinely, but still have occasional recourse
to the following features in PS5LE

1. PS5LE's 'Variations' screen, where you can compare
different twiddles alongside each other, with adjustable
degrees of aggressiveness.

2. The PS5LE pick tool for selecting white point and black
point from specific image locations. If this is there
somewhere in PSP, please could someone tell me where to find
it?

3. The superior PS5LE dithering of full screen images, which
gives a much more pleasing look, better representative of
what a print will look like.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc
Paintshop Pro 7.02


> PS-LE will get you started, Matthew. If you're an amateur,
the $600 price of
> Adobe6.0 isn't justifiable, especially when you paid less
for your scanner.
> If you plan to turn Pro, plan on "ramping up" your
expenditures by a factor
> of 2 or 3, at least.
>
> People speak well of the Jasc program, although I don't
have it personally.

Re: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)

[Alan Tyson]

I also have the yellow stain on my 2720S, but it is seldom a
problem. I have followed the discussion with interest. I
fear it's what we have to put up with in this very good
value downmarket product.

Vuescan shows the problem more than Miraphoto simply because
it's better at recording what's put out by the scanner
(mostly what's on the negative), warts and all. You can
choose in Vuescan how much of that information to throw
away.  You don't get the choice in Miraphoto.

Not long after I started with Vuescan in March 2000, or
thereabouts, I discovered a tramline fault in my Scanwit,
and had it replaced free of charge by the retailers. I
realised the fault had been there all along, but I'd never
noticed it in Miraphoto, and showed them prints to prove it.
If I looked closely at my old Miraphoto results it was
there, but not obvious, having been twiddled almost out of
existence along with lots of other negative detail before I
even started on image adjustment.

So if it's only occasionally a problem, don't worry. You can
got a lot of conventional prints made from your negs for the
difference in cost between the Scanwit and anything else
that's worth having. Some negatives have always been
difficult to print. The mistake occurred at the moment the
button was pressed, not when the scanner was bought.

Regards,

Alan  T

- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jerry Oostrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Lynn Allen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow
Stain)


> WARNING: The following is a rather long discussion of the
"yellow stain"
> effect seen on ACER Scanwit 2720s reported here a week or
so ago...

Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)

[Alan Tyson]

I haven't seen any film base deterioration yet in any of my
negs from the last 42 years (starting at age 10). I live in
the cool, moist UK, and they've been stored with no special
precautions. My octogenarian parents have lots of negs
stacked together in good condition in the original paper
wallets in their attic in cool, very moist South Wales.

We must have photographers posting here who're much older
than me. (You're only as old as your virtual personality,
and I don't feel a day over 90.) They're the folk from whom
we need to hear the hot, humid horror stories, or maybe
reassuring experiences from their centenarian grandparents.

Come on, old timers, bring out (or pour out) your negs!

BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
conclusion as last time we had a prolonged archiving
discussion here - we need as much of *both* careful neg
storage *and* systematic digital archiving & rearchiving as
we can be bothered with.

Regards to all,

Alan T.

- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was
Digital Shortcomings)

Re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem

[Alan Tyson]

Frank,

I've often failed to snap 'the center "snaps"' correctly on
my Scanwit 2720S, but scanning the wrong frame wasn't the
result - I got fatal failure to focus in Miraphoto, and
'hangs' in Vuescan.

So I hope clicking the carrier properly fixes your problem,
but I don't think I've had the 'wrong frame' problem you
describe in about 18 months' operation. I also had a problem
when I inadvertently covered up the slot at the outer end of
the carrier with a film leader, which caused all sorts of
trouble.

Good luck. I like my Scanwit very much, and its value for
money is brilliant, but you have to understand its
limitations.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:25 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem


> What a great suggestion! The center "snaps" on the
negative carrier don't
> snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the
center of the lid...etc .

Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[Alan Tyson]

AIUI, emulsions such as C41, E6, and ordinary colour print
papers have the  dyes synthesised not in a chemical factory,
but in situ in the emulsion during processing. 'Colour
coupler'
molecules in the emulsion and the oxidation product of the
colour developer link together to give a long molecule with
the desired colour. This is a remarkably clever bit of
chemistry.

In contrast, in Kodachrome and Cibachrome processes the dye
molecules are presynthesised in one piece. In Kodachrome
they are diffused into the emulsion during processing, and
in Cibachrome, the unwanted dyes are selectively bleached
out during processing.

It is thus inherently easier in the latter processes to use
permanent dyes; the colour chemists have fewer constraints
because they don't have to meet the requirements of
developer chemistry as well as everything else.

Regards,

Alan Tyson

- Original Message -
From: laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

(and other messages)

OT:Re: filmscanners: brief density math lesson...

[Alan Tyson]

"mnemonic" ?

Can't remember what that means. ISTR I could even spell it
on demand, a long time ago.

SWALK
Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Todd Radel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: brief density math lesson...


> Obviously this is a danger in using mnemonic systems. :-)
>

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - illegal ops?

[Alan Tyson]

I had lots of trouble with Vuescan yesterday, but  attributed it to my 
recent hard disk failure then upgrade, change from Win98 to Win98SE, and rebuild 
of my software. This is with a Scanwit and 192MB RAM.
 
I had many crashes, not on opening Vuescan, but during operation. I tried 
versions 7.0.21, 25, 26, 27 and 7.1, with careful expunging of the previous one 
each time. With odd exceptions, I was unable to do a strip of 6 scans without a 
full-scale hang, usually on the focus step of the second to fifth frame. I had 
to run Scandisk many times, and finally a total lockup caused my machine 
to want a surface scan. When I eventually allowed it, it took 8.5 hours to 
complete (40GB), so I'm not happy.
 
Before my recent upgrade, I had lately found Vuescan very stable, (up to 
V7.0.21), even when PaintShopPro was running as well. A further confusing issue 
is my recent upgrade from PSP7 to PSP7.02. I suspect PSP may have become more of 
a memory hog, in pursuit of greater stability (for itself). However, several of 
my crashes occurred with everything but Vuescan shut down. It's possible I'd 
never tried 6 continuous scans with PSP 7.02 before.
 
Interestingly, in most, but not all, of yesterday's failures, the scanner 
did a single uninterrupted pass, instead of its usual curious behaviour where it 
stops every 15% or so, steps back 1mm or so, and then restarts. It has been like 
that since v7.0.15. I asked Ed about it and he told me not to worry, it's just 
that the computer can't keep up. It doesn't affect the results.
 
So, I'm therefore worried that Win98SE's more rigorous checking of things 
has slowed things down, altered memory management, etc, so that my old stable 
setup is lost forever.
 
Any ideas, anyone?
 
Alan T
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  John & 
  Anne Mahany 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 10:13 
  AM
  Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan - illegal 
  ops?
  
  Greetings,
   
  I am having trouble with all versions of Vuescan since 
  V7-0-27 and including V7-1
  Opening, or rather, trying to open the program gives a 
  series of "Illegal Operation" boxes in Vuescan.exe.
   
  Luckily I keep all previous versions so I have V7-0-25 up 
  and running still.
   
  Deleting the *.ini file has not helped.
   
  Anybody else suffering or have any ideas?  
  Ed?
   
  John
   
  Anne & John MahanyNew Forest 
U.K.

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request

[Alan Tyson]

It sounds to me as though your backup software may be
keeping a record of everything that has been installed since
the last backup, and trying to recreate it when you restore,
and also trying to verify that this will be possible.

If this is the case it's a superficially good but naive idea
from the point of view of a backup program, but terrible if
you're a sophisticated user, who's renamed and moved things,
and not simply installed and left things.

Vuescan installation is as simple as any other program I've
encountered - it always installs to one place and one place
only, and it's all *contained* within that directory. I for
one would deplore any moves on Ed's part to complicate this
excellent and simple way of working. (He's a clever chap, in
case you hadn't noticed.)

Regards,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: cjcronin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:23 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan request


>
>
>
> At 06:59 PM 5/20/01, you wrote:
> >Jules wrote:
> >
> >>I run several different releases of VS. I was in the
process of setting
> >them all back up on my new hard drive when I got an error
message that VS
> >could not create/write to the directory it wants to
install too. Once I put
> >a copy of vuescan on, I will rename it, then install
another version. I have
> >no idea what went wrong but my computer will not let me
make a vuescan
> >directory (says it already exists but I don't see it)
after I have installed
> >and renamed only two of the programs.
> >
> >Yipe! I've been doing the same thing, but only 2 versions
at a time. Please
> >keep this discussion On-List--it also affects me, and
probably others, too.
> >
> >BTW, Jules, do you have Norton Utilities installed? I've
used that program
> >to good advantage to uninstall embedded programs that
have gotten corrupted
> >and wouldn't reinstall. It's a PITA, but sometimes it's
gotta be done.
> >
> >Good luck and best regards--LRA
>
> Hi Lynn,
>
> Yes I tried Norton before I turned here for advice.
Deleting the directory at the ms-dos prompt worked. Weird
thing is, I did not see the directory in windows (and I do
have show hidden files checked) but when I went to the dos
prompt there it was. Deleted it and everything is fine now.
>
> Thanks,
> Jules
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding

[Alan Tyson]

Just to add an alternative, broader view to the
discussion

I agree that scanning the negative always has the potential
for a better result, and that's what I always do myself as
first choice. BUT let us not forget that simple flatbed
print scanning has its place, because..

1. It's very quick because much of the decision making on
tonal range has already been done, and one's options are
greatly reduced - you can't preserve detail that isn't
there. However, the print may already be quite satisfactory,
artistically.

2. The negative may have been damaged, or may have
deteriorated more than the print, through abuse (sneezing on
it, or inappropriate cleaning or storage);

3. The dust problem is enormously reduced;

4. With little or no effort, the quick & dirty cheapo
flatbed results will, quite possibly, delight most
non-filmscanning, not-too-critical friends and family, even
at quite excessive degrees of enlargement;

5. The assertion that 'filmscanning is it' will deter many
potential converts to quasi-digital photography. Many people
will never get stuck into filmscanning as we enthusiasts
have done, because of the cost and the blood, sweat & tears
involved. They could revolutionise their photography quite
easily by using a cheap flatbed scanner on their prints.
Some of them *just might* become converts to filmscanning.
 I did this for 9 months, with great satisfaction, before
buying my first filmscanner.) These folk need *gentle*
encouragement to join us, and develop & preserve the
filmscanner market. If we're not careful, mass market
filmscanning will wither in parallel to silver photography
as all-digital systems develop.

Digital cameras have much further to go than we have. We
know that, but the marketeers don't.

Regards to all,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Bob Shomler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding


> >There is no doubt in my mind that scanning the negative
is far better > >than scanning the print.

Re: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro

[Alan Tyson]

Thanks Rob, and Dail&Gail, for the lists of fixes in the
PSP7.02 patch.

I use PSP7.0 almost every day on 2700ppi filmscans, and
luckily I haven't hit any of these problems. I've had it
since the UK launch (about a year ago?). This is on a 400MHz
Pentium II with 192MB RAM.

I use the clipboard a lot, with no problems, and I've used
the salt & pepper filter a few times. It's extremely slow,
but works as advertised.
I've had very few crashes, in fact, and don't associate them
with the issues mentioned. With only 192MB, I'm quite
careful not to be spendthrift with memory, to avoid disk
thrashing.

I'll see if I can extract a patch on disk from the UK
distributors, because a 10MB download  'patch' is
ridiculous - obviously it's a whole new program. I've
successfully upgraded PSP several times in the past using
very quick & easy patches.
Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro


> Alan wrote:
> >Do you know what's in the 'patch'?
>
> I don't know *everything* that is in the patch, but I do
know a number of
> critical bug fixes in it.  These are mostly related to the
use of the clipboard.
>  If you try to copy and paste a large amount of data, it
may crash PSP.
>  I found that PSP would also crash if you use the salt and
pepper filter
> on a large image, and some of the other photo editing
tools.
>

Re: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro

[Alan Tyson]

> PS If you get PSP 7 make sure you download the appropriate
7.02 patch.

Rob,

Do you know what's in the 'patch'?

You inspired me to take a look, and it's a 10MB download for
the International English version, so I don't want it unless
I really need it.

I haven't yet found anything myself that doesn't work in
v7.0.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro

Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides

[Alan Tyson]

> B&W prints and full strength household
> ammonia dissolved the emulsion right off the print.

Arthur,

Ammonia is also quite a  good solvent for metallic silver,
especially finely divided as in B&W images, so I presume the
idea was to remove an unwanted relative, politician or other
bystander from the print!

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides

Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit but also generic calibration

[Alan Tyson]

AIUI, there is no software control of *exposure* available
to the Scanwit programmer, so you're stuck with the
automatic exposure that the machine decides is appropriate
for the frame being scanned. All Vuescan (or any other
software) can do is twiddle the raw scan after scanning. So
scanning 'black' or 'white' frames would have no point,
because the scanner would still do its own thing on the real
frame.

The only place where this has proved seriously problematical
for me with my Scanwit is that it disables the suggestions
in the Vuescan Help file for getting consistency in
multi-shot panoramas and the like. You can be careful to
expose consistently in the camera, and set the orange mask
values to be identical, but the scanner will still not give
matching tones from frame to frame.

Another place where it's a handicap is in badly over or
underexposed frames, where it would be nice to experiment
with the scanning exposure to get tone in the most desired
details.

Regards,

Alan T



- Original Message -
From: Shough, Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: AcerScanwit but also generic
calibration


> I had assumed that VueScan and other scanner software
already did black and
> white point compensation, but I think you may be right
that they do not do
> black point compensation

Re: filmscanners: File format

[Alan Tyson]

No-one has commented on the difference between my results
 a bit of lace jpegged 10 times), posted on 30Mar, and
Henk's image of a letter on a plain background, similarly
treated. I can assure folk that I saved each image under a
new name and only *then* closed it before reloading it.

Is it perhaps that jpeg is specially suited to
'photographic' images, and not to areas of single solid
colours with sharp edges like Henk's image? The latter is
rare in photographic images, and lossless gif does an
excellent compression job on that sort of thing anyway.

Would someone who understands the maths of jpeg compression
care to comment and suggest reasons for the discrepancy,
please?

Or maybe Henk's and my results need repeating, like cold
fusion and life on Mars?

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: Hugo Gävert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: File format


Come on guys, what happens when you save with jpeg or any
other
compression that loses data? You save the file, the
compression algorithm
desides what information can be thrown away, and then saves
it..

Re: filmscanners: File format

[Alan Tyson]

I tried it with ten iterations in PSP7, and saw no visible
degradation, so my finding was different from Henk's.

Attached: two 6K jpeg clips of a bit of lace, clipped out of
400x250  29K clips  from an original 2700 dpi scan.

The first is a clip from a PSP7 '15%' jpeg photograph,
resaved once as
'10%'  jpeg, and the other is the same clip closed, reopened
and resaved 10 times. Note that the file sizes aren't
necessarily
significant, because I failed to crop them to exactly
the same size.

I suspect it might be a different story if the image had
been edited slightly between each iteration, because then
the jpegging couldn't repeat itself exactly. I haven't tried
that experiment yet because I can't think of a standardised
small
bit of editing to do each time. Any suggestions?

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: File format


> Out of curiosity, how many timed did you do this and what
sorts of changes
> did you see?  Have you tried the same experiment using
another image editing
> program to eliminate the possibility that it might be more
a by-product of
> what PSP is doing than what is generic to JPEG
compressions?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Henk de Jong
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: File format
>
>
> I just did a test.
> Opening and saving the same .jpg file in PSP over and over
without changing
> anything.
> Every step the picture is changing a little bit...
>
> __
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage Nepal - Trekking Around Annapurna - Photo
Gallery:
> http://annapurna.wolweb.nl
>
>



 lace1s.jpg
 lace10s.jpg

Re: filmscanners: File format

[Alan Tyson]

> A program opens and re-adjusts the image for viewing;
>I've seen both PS
> and PP8 change the size values on a subsequent Save

I have never seen Paint Shop Pro do this for an unedited
image. The file size is likely to be different, however, if
the first image came from a different package's jpeg save
routine, because each has its own scale and criteria for
'jpeg quality'.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: File format

Re: filmscanners: File format

[Alan Tyson]

Maris said:

> Just a note on LZW compressed image portability - I have
run into one
> instance where an LZW compressed image was not portable -
when exporting a
> 48-bit compressed TIFF from Vuescan to Corel PhotoPaint 9
it opens but the
> image is unrecognizable.  If exported uncompressed there
is no problem,

Alan T says:

This may be the same problem we discussed in February. Here
is an extract from that discussion.

Alan T:
> >PSP7 will not read the compressed 48-bit tif files from
> >Vuescan, saying "a predictor of 2 is only supported on
LZW
> >compression for 8 and 24 bit images."  It's fine for
24-bit
> >Vuescan compressed or uncompressed tifs.

Rob:
> Ah, yes.  I think PSP may also read a 48bit uncompressed
> file?  I'll have to try it.  I'll try raising the issue
> with JASC.

Alan T: Yes it does (see my message of 13:33 GMT 6Feb).

Ed has now explained why PSP can't read his compressed
 48-bit ones as opposed to Adobe's allegedly compressed but
larger files.

Ed Hamrick:
>Yes, I set TIFFTAG_PREDICTOR to 2.  Adobe must have
>forgotten to do this.

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:29 PM
Subject: PSP and 48 bit was Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning
problems

filmscanners: Re: Own brand neg films; Was: Neg film for scanning

[Alan Tyson]

Ah! Several people have told me that Tesco & Jessops film is
likely to be Konica, and if Konica manufacture in Germany,
that tallies. I think these two brands are the same, and the
same as "Activa" films supplied by the Bonusprint D&P firm.
They have similar markings on the neg top edges, including
digits such as "2810 12",  "2870 18",  or "2881 40", with
the last pair of digits in smaller font size. I can't tell
the difference in the results.

Against that, none of the Konica settings in Vuescan work
anything like as well on these films as the 'generic'
setting (Kodak Gold 400 Gen 5) .

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning


> In all probability it could just as well be Konica film -
also from Germany.
>

Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Alan Tyson]

I have in my hand a Tesco (leading UK supermarket chain)
pack of 8x36 400ASA neg films, which cost me 12 ukpounds.
This is 30% of the cost of Kodak Supra 400, which, I've been
tempted to try because of its anti-scratch coating. I get
lots of random scratch trouble from several different labs.

The Tesco pack says on it "Produced in the E.U. and packed
in the UK". I think this means it was made in one of a
handful of plants in the EU. Do I remember correctly that 3M
had a plant in Italy? Who owns it now? It is the 'Ferrania'
plant I remember from my youth? Then there are the E.German
plants ('Orwo' many years ago). Do they still exist? Has
Konica got a European manufacturing base?

Any info gratefully received.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning


> Mike is right.  There are no "supermarket" brands.
3M/Scotch used to be
> a main supplier of these no-brand films, but I think they
left that biz.
>   So most, if not all North American supermarket brands
are either
> rebranded Fuji or Konica/Sakura, both of which are decent
films, and
> even Kodak supplies some unbranded films now.

filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Alan Tyson]

I've been trawling in the archive
(http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/htdig) for the discussion I
remember here 3-4 months ago about Kodak's "Supra" neg
films, with allegedly good characteristics for scanning, and
a protective layer. The conclusions were ambiguous then.

Like Michael Wilkinson who's reported here lately, I've been
suffering from scratches and muck on my negs, but also
grain/aliasing on my 2700dpi Scanwit. Ed Hamrick's website
actually recommends Kodak Supra 400 with a link to an
enthusiast's website.

My local Jessops' photographic chain store doesn't stock
Supra 400, but will order it up at about 25 ukpounds for a
5-pack of 135-36. This is several times the price of the
cheapo supermarket 400ASA neg film I generally use. Despite
the 'grain' problems I'm usually happy with the results, but
I hate the scratches & muck. Many of the scratches look to
me as though they're due to post-handling of the negs
(enprinting & bagging).

Since our last discussion, has anyone here been using Kodak
Supra 400, and scanning it? Does the extra hardening work as
scratch protection?

Regards,

Alan T

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan

[Alan Tyson]

> >don't you reckon, Vuescan lacks of good tutorial, help
file, manual?

Speaking as a former Help author, I think Vuescan's Help is
very good for a program that has evolved so rapidly. The way
it's structured at the moment lends itself to quick & easy
amendment of individual topics, without a major reworking
involving changes that propagate through the whole Help
file.

It's also quite small. It's very easy to sit and read
through the whole lot sequentially, using the Help browse
Buttons (>>) at the top of the browse window. It doesn't
take long, and nearly everyone would learn something if they
did it.

When Ed's stopped developing it or at least slowed down a
lot, *then* I think someone should maybe do a posh
definitive version. I don't feel the need myself.

Regards,

Alan T

Re: filmscanners: cleaning neg's, sharpening

[Alan Tyson]

As usual, the physics & chemistry is more complicated than
one would expect.

If we're after something that has as little effect as
possible on the chemical balance of the emulsion, pure water
probably isn't the best thing. It has zero concentration of
almost everything except water (it's a 55 Molar solution of
that), so almost everything will diffuse into it from
anything that has non-zero concentration. So the carefully
designed (or maybe accidental) mix of chemicals present in
the emulsion will be disrupted by prolonged soaking in pure
water. If you want to avoid changes in whatever it is that
you're soaking, you need a 'buffer solution' that roughly
matches in solute content the thing you're soaking.

How you find out the right concentrations of just what
solutes is anyone's guess. A *very* rough analogy is how
it's a bad idea to transfuse yourself with pure water if
you're dehydrated; an 'isotonic solution' that matches the
properties of your blood is required.

I'd guess that distilled, deionised, or (filtered) rainwater
would have indistinguishable practical effects on a
photographic emulsion, because they're all very different
from what's in the emulsion, and they're all water, more or
less.

Alan T
(retired research chemist, who sticks his head above the
chemical parapet occasionally in 'filmscanners').

- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: cleaning neg's, sharpening


> > Bear in mind that if you use anything but 'unexposed'
distilled water as a
> cleaning agent, you are in fact using carbonic
acid..!

>...don't use the "Pure Spring
> Water" drinkable stuff to wash negs--it's got little
disolved rocks in it,

Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving

[Alan Tyson]

Googling on "Hanimex Rondex" was in fact my first stop, but
I found nothing relevant in the UK.  Most of the hits I got
were second order hits on Hanimex lenses. I imagine
intercontinental transportation costs would be prohibitive,
and probably not worthwhile on something that's worth
considerably less than nothing as it stands.

Thanks for the suggestions, anyway. An internet 'wanted' ad
is perhaps one route I'll explore.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Richard N. Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving


> Try the web search: http://www.google.com
> Then enter Hanimex Rondex slide
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving

[Alan Tyson]

Dear Arthur,

I've just experienced yet another photographic archiving
lesson, this time rather a painful one, with a lesson for
all of us about dependence on current technology.

I have thousands of colour slides, taken from approx
1970-1991, and about 7800 of these are stored in Hanimex
Rondex 120-slide round magazines. I have 'temporarily
archived' about 6yrs-worth by filming them onto VHS tape,
with commentary,  using a Video8 camcorder as camera on
small, bright projected images. I'm quite happy with these
results - they're mostly just holiday snaps, and I can
always filmscan the masterpieces if I want to.

On trying to continue the process, I now discover my Hanimex
slide projector has died, and such machines and their
magazines are extinct in the UK outside museums.

So, unless I can (a) repair the projector, I'm faced with
(b) transferring them to another projection system, handling
them one at a time whatever I do (I also have a 1-slide-at-a
time projector, which would be cheapest), (c) trying to find
a second-hand projector at reasonable cost, or (d) (the
correct solution for filmscanning folk), scanning the lot
with my Scanwit.

I estimate (d) will take a year's nearly full-time work, so
I'll take the projector to bits first.

At least our *digital* images will last a long time and are
transferrable onwards in principle. When VHS becomes
seriously endangered (not far ahead, I think), I'll invest
in two cheap VCRs and a current portable TV, and leave them
unused, so I can sit in my bathchair in future looking at my
holiday snaps & analogue home videotapes.

I'm not optimistic about my children being able in future to
derive the same pleasure from my efforts that I get from my
parents' B&W snapshots from my own childhood.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving

Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving

[Alan Tyson]

Khalid said:

> > 2-What file Format should I use to save?
>
Arthur said:

> TIFF or any other you think you will be able to read years
from now,
> which is lossless.  That precludes JPEG

Alan T says:

Arthur,

Khalid didn't give us any clues on just how perfect an
archive of his negs he wants. If he wants the best digital
representation of his life's works, you're completely
correct, of course.

However, he might not be so fussy, and like me,  might wish
to save *all* his pictures, but only a *few* little gems to
high standards. As a 3MB "90% quality" jpeg of a 2700dpi
frame is visually indistinguishable from the tiff when
viewed at "1:1", surely that standard will do for many
purposes? He'll get 200 of them on one disk, instead of 2
disks per film as tiffs, and the data will be easier to
transfer to a new medium in n years' time.

I'm writing this because today I was taught a lesson about
it. Our village in rural England has run a "millennium
project", where all the properties have been photographed,
with occupants outside where possible. Getting the output to
the population at reasonable cost is problematical. When I
got involved, the films had been exposed but not processed.
I suggested PhotoCD, so that everyone who had, or might have
a computer could have a copy of all the images for their
grandchildren, at little cost.

Through a series of misunderstandings, and the possible
withdrawal of cheap high-street Kodak *PhotoCD* here due to
lack of demand, we've finished up with Kodak *PictureCD*
instead. Initially, I thought this a bit of a disaster.
There are 7 CDs, each consisting almost entirely of Kodak's
software. The data, as approx 1500x1000pixel 500KB jpegs at,
I estimate, "95% quality" takes up 102MB altogether,
complete with a freeware image viewer, when I transcribe it
to a CD-R.

On viewing the images on screen (only 17" 800x600, I fear),
I realise that it's fine; everyone but critical
photographers will think the results are wonderful. I think
most of them would even be pleased with A4 prints from these
images at only 100 dpi or so.

So I still contend that jpeg archiving has its place among
rough & ready filmscanners.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Alan Tyson]

As Henry says, CLI means "Command Line Interface". (Like DOS
and native Unix, and millions of programs running under
them.)

To assist my filmscanning, I still use only one example
regularly:

Open a DOS window, and type the drive letter for your CD-ROM
drive. Type "DIR /s >C:\files.txt". This puts a nice
directory listing of the CD into "C:\files.txt", amazingly
(under Win98) including long filenames, and it'll load
beautifully into Excel or Word so that you can search it, or
even add columns to tell you what the image files were.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Hersch Nitikman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> I may have known once, but I can't remember what a CLI is.
> Hersch

Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets

[Alan Tyson]

>But the biggest
> problem area in *both* media is where the dynamic range is
>wide, e.g. in

> But seriously, how are other users handling this
problem?-

Not very well, in general, myself. I frequently resort to
burning in highlights and/or dodging shadows using
PaintShopPro's 'smart edge selection tool', with judicious
tweaking of the histograms for the selected bits of image.

Any helpful suggestions for better methods (other than 'buy
a more expensive scanner') would be very welcome here as
well.

Regards,

Alan T

Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:34 PM
Subject: re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Alan Tyson]

I mean Vuescan v5.9t53 (Feb2000) and earlier. It didn't have
a preview, and Ed's made many algorithmic strides since
then, so it was primitive by current standards.

However, all settings were visible on a single screen.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: IronWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> Unfortunately I've never seen that one.
>
> Maris
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alan Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:27 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
>.
> I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' .

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Alan Tyson]

- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> Myself, I think I'd have a problem with not seeing the
controls
> I'm presently using while I acquire subsequent scans.

Hear, hear!

 >"how
> many of us would need use VS in a 800by600 screen size???"

I would, for one. I find the standard text on every 1024x768
display I've seen most uncomfortable to read and fuzzy, and
800x600 on a 17" monitor is just right.

>Wouldn't
> 1024x768 allow for control tabs on the left and display
tabs on the
> right??

Yes, but I'd get a headache, and have to visit my
optician/optometrist more often.

Regards,

Alan T

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Alan Tyson]

I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided
that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system,
where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't
remember which ones I've just looked at.

PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all
settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This
meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was
analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs &
dials, rather than a TV remote control.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> I'm curious what people think of the idea of having
> VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having
> one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan
> visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all
> the tabs).

Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets

[Alan Tyson]

I have a Scanwit 2720s, with which I am well pleased. It's
much the best budget scanner, by all accounts.

However, even with Ed Hamrick's Vuescan (a nearly essential
$40 accessory for most scanners) you can exert only limited
control over its initial output. You'll get its own
automatic exposure setting whatever you do. You can save the
'raw' scanner data, and play with it afterwards, but there's
little or nothing you can do to control the content of that
raw file. You can't expose for the shadows specifically, or
the highlights, for example. Vuescan allows you to extract
the best from the raw data, once you've got it.

So if you're into subtleties like accurate calibration, you
may need to spend more money than you would on the Scanwit,
to get more control over the scanner.

Good luck,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets


> I acknowledge that I'm a "newbie" to film scanning, so
I'll ask a question
> that may have a very obvious answer: How much sense does
it make to purchase
> one or both of Kodak's Q-60 Color Input Targets for
calibrating a new
> scanner?  I have well in excess of 1000 slides to
archive--about equal
> numbers of Kodachrome and Ektachrome--and the targets cost
$40 and $29
> respectively.
>
> Am I likely to save time and re-work by using the targets
for calibration, or
> is there there some "better" (cheaper, quicker,
simpler,etc) way to keep the
> scanner in calibration?
>
> BTW, I don't have the scanner yet, although the Acer
ScanWit 2720s is at the
> top of my list.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bruce
>

Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13...

[Alan Tyson]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc.
for printing 8.5 x 11and 13...

> If you save in JPEG once, re-open to work on it once, and
then save it as a
> TIFF,  how much quality do you lose?

Alan T:

Very little, I'd say, as it was very close to a tif version
of the original, at a pixel level. Saving jpegs as jpegs
after reworking several times is probably a bad idea, though
I've got away with it quite often.

Why not try it and see? You'll see differences and jpeg
artefacts quite easily at high magnifications in an image
editor.

>And when you save raw data, what kind
> of file is that and how much space does it take up?

Alan T:

27-40MB tiff from Scanwit/Vuescan at 2700 ppi.

Regards,

Alan T

Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...

[Alan Tyson]

Thanks, Arthur, for a clear exposition, as usual.

So the answer to Marvin's question 1 part 2 is...

"Use the resolution you got from the scanner, and let the
printer driver do the work."

This is what I've always done myself with my 2700ppi
scanner. I can't tell the difference in a print from
resizing/resampling the image first, and it's one less step.

To answer his question 2 and question 1 (part1)

The file size will then be 27MB from a full 35mm frame as a
TIFF, or a little less if compressed. If you save these
you'll be able to rework it later without losing image
information.

However, if I'm sure I'm happy with the result, and don't
intend to rework it in future, I save and print a JPEG, at
"90% quality" (Vuescan scale) or "15% compression factor"
(PaintShopPro scale). This results in a file size of 1.8 to
3MB, which is almost indistinguishable at a pixel level on
screen and on paper from the uncompressed TIFF.

The consequence of this for question 3 is that 200-300
images will fit on  a single CD-R disk (or fewer if written
in many separate sessions), instead of only 20-25 tiff
files. So I save TIFF files if I think I'm going to rework
the image seriously in future, but otherwise save JPEGs.
This has the incidental advantage that every image viewer I
have reads the jpegs much quicker than the tiffs.

When I think I'll rework an image, I realise I may have
become fussier by then, so I usually save the raw image data
file from my scanner as well, on CD. I'll then be able to
rework it in about a year's time in Vuescan version
247.7.24. By then it will probably read my mind and guess
correctly what I'd like to have done with the image in the
first place.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc.
for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...


> Marvin Demuth wrote:
>
> > 1. The typical file sizes you use at the printing stage
and the ppi of your
> > final scans.
> > 2. The file format of the file at the printing stage.
> > 3. How you archive your final scans used for the
printing, i.e. CDs, etc.

...and...
>
> Understanding resolution Copyright A.
Entlich, 2001
>

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7 Available

[Alan Tyson]

A couple of times a while back I had actually seen Ed's web
page updated to a new version number, but still got the old
version when I clicked the link. Both were correct at the
time so far as Ed was concerned. I think maybe some of the
servers between Ed & me had been caching & occasionally
updating some bits & not others. Waiting a few hours fixed
it each time.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7 Available


> Dale , it must be a problem of your cache memory because I
have successfully
> downloaded 6.7 .
>

filmscanners: A funny Scanwit story

[Alan Tyson]

I made a stupid mistake today that made me think the
focusing mechanism on my 1-year-old Scanwit had failed.

When trying to scan frame 3 of a strip of negatives, Vuescan
just kept on saying it was busy, indefinitely, and there was
no sign of the expected focusing step. Miraphoto (the
Acer-supplied software which I haven't used for about 9
months)gave an immediate fatal crash and spontaneous reboot.

I'd just been scanning successfully in Vuescan 6.6.4, and
thought I'd just experienced a hardware failure, as numerous
reboots and restarts and a reinstallation of Miraphoto
failed to effect an improvement.

THEN I realised that I was scanning the first few frames of
a film, and I'd failed to notice a bit of black leader
protruding into the 30x8mm vertical slot at the outer end of
the film holder. This stopped the machine dead because it
couldn't see through the hole.

I tell this tale in the hope no-one else will be so dumb.
Always trim your neg strips neatly.

Have fun

Alan T

Re: PSP and 48 bit was Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems

[Alan Tyson]

> Ah, yes.  I think PSP may also read a 48bit uncompressed
> file?  I'll have to try it.  I'll try raising the issue
> with JASC.

Yes it does (see my message of 13:33 GMT 6Feb).

Ed has now explained why PSP can't read his compressed
 48-bit ones as opposed to Adobe's allegedly compressed but
larger files.

>Yes, I set TIFFTAG_PREDICTOR to 2.  Adobe must have
>forgotten to do this.

So JASC could alter their import routine, but PSP still
wouldn't be able to write a 48-bit image, so there's  not a
lot of point in it. I have quite enough trouble with 24-bit
myself, so I'm happy with PSP7.

Regards,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:29 PM
Subject: PSP and 48 bit was Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning
problems


> Alan wrote:
> >PSP7 will not read the compressed 48-bit tif files from
> >Vuescan, saying "a predictor of 2 is only supported on
LZW
> >compression for 8 and 24 bit images."  It's fine for
24-bit
> >Vuescan compressed or uncompressed tifs.
>
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

[Alan Tyson]

>All glasses strongly absorb UV radiation

Oh good. That's what I was trying to tell people. Thanks.

We could also mention the effect of path length, i.e., a
window pane vs a 14-element lens.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Shough, Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems

[Alan Tyson]

Sorry, I should have been more specific and explicit. The
context of the discussion was loss of high-bit colour
information (or not) started by someone who expected a 50MB
tif and got a 7MB jpeg. We then wandered off into jpeg
compression viewers.

PSP7 will not read the compressed 48-bit tif files from
Vuescan, saying "a predictor of 2 is only supported on LZW
compression for 8 and 24 bit images."  It's fine for 24-bit
Vuescan compressed or uncompressed tifs.

It will read Vuescan uncompressed tif files (27MB or 55MB
from 2700ppi 35mm), but if you save them in PSP7 you'll
always get an image that's 27MB 24-bit uncompressed (or
smaller using any of its compression methods). This doesn't
bother me, but I thought it might not satisfy everyone,
hence my comment.

In contrast, Photoshop 5LE will save 16-bit per channel
images, compressed or uncompressed. Interestingly, those
compressed images from Photoshop *will* load into PSP7, but
you can only save them as 8-bit per channel, as I understand
it.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Henk de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems


> Alan wrote:
>
> > PSP7 only works with 24-bit images, however, and only
> > uncompressed tifs.
>
> If you choose to save as "Tagged Image File Format
(*.tif,*.tiff)" you have
> a button "Save Options" where you can select:
> "Compression: FAX - CCITT 3, Huffman encoding, LZW
compression, Packbits or
> Uncompressed"
>
> Only uncompressed tifs? :-)
>
> __
> With kind regards,
>
> Henk de Jong
> The Netherlands
> Email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage Nepal - Trekking Around Annapurna - Photo
Gallery:
> http://annapurna.wolweb.nl
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems

[Alan Tyson]

shAf already mentioned that he had JPEG software that
allowed him to preview & compare uncompressed and compressed
images.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that PaintShopPro7 also has an
excellent JPEG compression magnifying preview facility, when
you choose "File..| Save as..| jpg...| Options...| Run
optimiser."

PSP7 only works with 24-bit images, however, and only
uncompressed tifs. Since I accidentally discovered this
facility (not easily done), I have used no other, when
emailing images to friends.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems


>look, within Photoshop, at the
> image under high zoom and see if you not a clumping or
blockiness to the
> pixels or "noise" (really artifacts) around small dots
with high
> contrast.

Re: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

[Alan Tyson]

UV is dangerous through breaking chemical bonds directly; IR
is dangerous through cooking (breaking chemical bonds by
heating as in a grill or a toaster).  The sun's radiant
energy has lots and lots of both. Your retinal heat
receptors (if any) won't be quick enough to prevent damage
if you put a small solar image on your retina for long.

If IR was nothing to worry about, fogged colour neg film
would be fine for eclipse viewing, and it isn't, (see
attached spectra from NASA's website).

The 'greenhouse effect' with respect to the Earth is
unfortunately misleading with respect to greenhouses. It's
because the incident black body radiation from the sun is
characteristic of intense 6500K and the reradiated energy is
characteristic of weak 300-odd K. Not a lot of the sun's UV
gets to the surface because it's absorbed in the ozone
layer, but the energy does stay in the atmosphere and warm
us up indirectly. The function of greenhouse glass and solar
water heater coverings is to let IR in and keep draughts
out.

This is another divergent OT discussion, so I'm sorry for
prolonging it, but it is a safety issue. When I can find an
absorption spectrum of optical glass I'll send it you
privately. Your greenhouse protects you surprisingly well
from UV in temperate latitudes, as I recall (but not well
enough for hanging up pictures of the plants).

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun


> Infra-red is on the other end of the light spectrum and is
of very low
> energy per photon compared even to light. It is manifested
to us as heat.
> How is this dangerous?


 negabs01.gif

Re: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

[Alan Tyson]

Infrared is also a serious, if not worse, hazard. Glass is
fairly transparent to it, as shown by greenhouses, passive
solar panels, the burning of holes with magnifying glasses,
and the feasibility of IR photography with ordinary lenses.

Most glasses absorb UV much more strongly than IR. Most of
the materials used for sun viewing and photography (eclipse
goggles) have a  (log10) density of 5-8 for UV and visible,
and less than 5 for IR.

The worst of the lot is fogged colour negative film, which
is fine in the UV & visible, but lethal to eyes because it's
transparent to IR.

NASA's web site has lots on this under solar eclipses.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun


> True, but only a very small amount.  UV filters filter
only enough to keep
> the image from displaying haze and color shift effects but
not enough to
> protect eyes from the harmful effects over any prolonged
period of time like
> more than 5 minutes duration or great accumulations of
short duration
> periods ( Here I am speculating since I do not know if the
harmful effects
> are cumulative).

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

[Alan Tyson]

Tom,

A while back, I went through all the monitor calibration
stuff on several different sites and found it very easy to
make things much worse.

Then I found that the best match between my Taxan Ergovision
735TCO99 monitor and HP710C printer (using Vuescan and
PaintShopPro7 or Photoshop 5LE, mostly) was achieved by
leaving everything exactly as it was, with the factory
defaults, except for a slight adjustment to the
black point of the monitor.

So this may be something to try at an early stage! Try
printing a colour chart or two and grey scale, and see if
anything much is wrong.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: IronWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?


> In line with shAF's white and black point setting
suggestion, there is an
> excellent site at http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/index.htm,
very professional
> but understandable and lots of how-to-do-its.
>
> There is a monitor calibration section there, and a good
walk-through of the
> white and black point settings at
>
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/blackpoint/crt_bright
ness_and_contras
> t.htm
>
> Maris
>
etc., etc

Re: Compression: was: filmscanners: real value?

[Alan Tyson]

Michael,

For those of us working at 2700dpi

When you've got a final image with which you're really
happy, I find Ed Hamrick's choice of "90% jpeg quality" or
my own choice of "15% compression" in PaintShopPro to be
barely distinguishable at a pixel level from the original.

This typically saves a 27MB uncompressed 24-bit colour
photographic image as just over 2MB, and means 300-odd
instead of 25-odd images on a CD-R. Also, on my antique
2-year-old machine, reading and decompressing a 2MB jpeg is
enormously quicker than reading a 27MB tiff from disk or CD.

However, if you ever want to rework the material and do more
twiddling, obviously it's better to stick with lossless
compression.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?


> I have to admit to an ignorance on compressing files in
gereral
> I use LZW when Im storing on my server  and have not
bothered with other
> methods simply because in my early digital days I was
shown how badly
> jpeg images are degraded ..

Digital film: was:filmscanners: real value?

[Alan Tyson]

Roman said...

>Unless we can get a decent copy directly onto
> a photographic paper.

I think he's hit the nail on the head there. The output
stage is the key.

All of us on this list know the hassles to be suffered
plugging gadgets into our computers and getting satisfactory
photographic output on paper. We're the sort of enthusiastic
hobbyists or professionals who put up with that and won't
mind the equivalent hassles when good enough digital cameras
are cheap enough.

However, the great bulk of the public isn't like that, hates
computer hassles even more than we do, and wants the sort of
hassle-free photography offered by compact 35mm & APS
cameras plus minilab processing. They also like photo
albums.

The breakthrough still to come for digital to replace silver
in the mass market (and then drive prices down for serious
photographers) is in a cheap *universal* digital storage
medium, i.e., digital film.

You'd use a $100-200 1200x800 pixel camera, leave the
'memory stick' or whatever with the minilab at your local
supermarket, and get a set of 6x4 200dpi prints in say, 15
min. Sony (or others) could do it now, but they'd have to
kill off the competition, invest billions in the
infrastructure, and then probably suffer a Betamax v
VHS-style disaster.

So I agree that silver will be around for a long time, and
digital will remain not good enough or not cheap enough for
some time yet. Film scanners  and 'filmscanners' will remain
good value and Tony's mailing list phone bill will remain
large.

However, I've got a birthday soon, and if anyone wants to
buy me a  Sony DSC-S70, yes please, I'll have it.

Regards
Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Roman Kielich® <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?

Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners

[Alan Tyson]

This is what our esteemed Tony's web site said when I saved
it last on 11th October

>>PhotoCD is a cross-platform format, and film sizes from
APS to 5x4" may be scanned in a variety of resolutions from
128 x 192 pixels (Base/16) to 2048 x 3072 (16 Base). A
higher resolution and more tightly controlled variant, Pro
PhotoCD is available via many Kodak-accredited Professional
Labs at much higher cost, and additionally provides scans of
4096 x 6144 (64 Base). Costs are fixed by local operators,
not Kodak, so vary. <<

So the answer is yes, just, if you're not too fussy and you
want the whole frame - 186 or 236 ppi to the printer at 11"
high or 13" wide.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners


> > Would the highest resolution scan on the consumer grade
photo CD be
> > good enough to produce a high quality print as large as
11x13"
>
> I think so, yes, but define "high quality". :)

Re: filmscanners: Home C-41 processing

[Alan Tyson]

I've a lot to say about this. Those here last June may
remember an 'animated discussion' . I've mailed Michael &
Tim off-list. If anyone else is interested drop me a private
message.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Home C-41 processing


> One of the reasons labs keep their costs down is that they
reclaim the
> dissolved silver rather than dumping it down the
drain,what will you do
> with yours ?
> For you  its only a small quantity but ultimately an
environment

Re: filmscanners: Image alignment/registration

[Alan Tyson]

>so the question is... How do you
>accurately register multiple scans of different negs of the
>same subject?

I have tried this only when matching the overlaps of
panoramic shots when I *have* moved the camera, on a tripod
pan head. I haven't found it too difficult myself to match
the edges of shots.

PaintShopPro7, and I expect Photoshop, allow you to 'nudge'
selections across the screen 1 pixel at a time, using
keyboard shortcuts. So you could do it by eye, on-screen. I
suspect your brain will beat automatic software quite
easily.

As a 2700dpi scan is about 106 pixels per millimetre on a
35mm frame, we're talking about 9 micron per pixel nudges on
the negative. Negative positioning in the film transport and
the scanner isn't likely to be that accurate from frame to
frame, or is it?

Good luck,

Alan T


- Original Message -
From: Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Image alignment/registration

Re: filmscanners: OT - Software for image correction

[Alan Tyson]

Paint Shop Pro 7, and probably other programs, have
'geometric effects' which will allow you to stretch the
image in one dimension. In PSP7 it's called horizontal and
vertical perspective.

I've used it successfully when I photographed a painting
propped against a wall, and stupidly failed to get the film
and the painting parallel.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: filmscanners: OT - Software for image correction


> Hi,
>
> I am not sure is it possible, but I am looking for
software/algorithms which
> enable me to correct photos taken with wrong angle. I mean
the film plane and
> object are not parallel. Do you hear about something like
this ?
> Regards
>
> Tomasz
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>

Re: filmscanners: DUST (was Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing)

[Alan Tyson]

> One small addition..If you run the shower a short time
before you dry
> your film, the dust seems to get stuck down, and you have
even less of a
> problem,

I remember seeing this suggested many years ago, and it did
seem to work for my film drying operations. I had little
trouble with negs and slides in a condenser enlarger, which
was presumably just as unforgiving as a filmscanner, in
spite of living in a rather dusty house.

However in the olden days in England we were using a bath
tub rather than a shower. Working class people like me had
to remove the coal stored in the tub first [19th/20th
century British sociological joke].

Seriously, it could well be that dust particles would form
nuclei for condensation and droplet formation as in rain
formation. This would accelerating settling of the dust. So
either a bath or a shower would do.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Gerry Kaslowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: DUST (was Scratched Negs & Home
C-41 processing)


>

Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Power Crisis STOP THIS THREAD NOW PLEASE

[Alan Tyson]

"Liberty is precious; so precious it must be rationed."
 [Bakunin (a Russian revolutionary)]

This seems a good motto for OT posters and list
administrators.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Power Crisis STOP THIS
THREAD NOW PLEASE


> Now that's what I call Admin: Power!

Re: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing

[Alan Tyson]

> stir in about an
> ounce of boiling water from a measuring cup every 30-60
seconds,
> as needed. Crude but fairly effective. I can keep the
temperature
> between 99.5 and 100.5 for three minutes without
difficulty.

Thanks very much for the hints & info. That's the sort of
thing I did for E6, with the whole lot sitting on an ancient
second-hand warming plate meant for developing dishes.

Did you presoak the film & tank in water to get the
temperature roughly right first? That's what I used to do
with B&W and E6. Otherwise adding the developer to a
tank+film at a different temperature would give a
temperature which would never be quite right inside a mere
3-minute period.

I'm concerned that with such a short development time, it
will be difficult to keep the temperature of the actual film
reasonably near the specification without a presoak,  but
that the presoak, by pre-swelling the emulsion, might alter
the result anyway.

I suppose the fact that you've succeeded demonstrates that
it's not that critical, and what I should do is try it and
see (as usual ).

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tim Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41
processing

Re: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing

[Alan Tyson]

I've been considering doing my own E6 processing for some
time, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. I did my
own E6 for many years, using several different chemistries,
and rudimentary equipment, including several thermometers.
I'm a retired chemist, so I could do with the experimental
practice.

Until these last two messages partly answered it for me, I
was going to ask just *how* critical the time & temperature
were.

My other questions for those who've done home C41 are...

(1) What is the shelf life of opened stock solutions? (For
E6 developers, it wasn't good, even with careful
displacement of air from the top of the bottles.)

(2) How bad are the economics? 10-15 years ago it was
costing me more to do my own, but the results were better.

All info welcome.
Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tim Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41
processing


...> > you have to be very careful to get perfect negs,
even agitation is critical.
>
> Fortunately we're talking about print film, where perfect
negatives
> are less of an issue. ...

Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Alan Tyson]

And we should also, perhaps, remember that different
persons' colour perceptions (Mk1 eyeball + brain software)
may differ.

For example, my own blue sensitivity or perception clearly
differs from the rest of family, because they are wont to
say, on nice sunny days, "look at that beautiful blue lake"
and I say "No, it's black, or nearly black". Photos of the
scene then show an annoyingly bright blue lake. On these
occasions I've seen what is about (0,0,255) according to
everyone else as nearly black.  There are also arguments
over whether a particular turquoise sea colour is more green
or more blue. (I pass all the colour blindness tests, BTW.
Maybe I have polarising eyeballs.)  Surprisingly, I detect
no difference in taste over colour balance on monitors &
prints.

I also notice that some people describe sodium vapour
lights, (and the associated spectral lines in a
spectroscope), as *orange* and some describe them as
*yellow*.

So even if a rigorous calibration system from original scene
to monitor or print is possible, we still won't necessarily
agree it looks right. This is just as well, as in all
artistic subjects, where variety is everything.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners


> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave
earlier : the Mk1 eyeball.
>

Re: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection

[Alan Tyson]

> But do some of you have the idea to switch to digital for
everyday
> photography? That would seem strange to me.

Yes, I do, as and when I can afford digital 3600x2400 pixel
frames, as I get from my scanner (probably in a decade or
so), because of..

1. immediacy of seeing a preview, so I can take it again if
I shook, someone moved, or I composed the shot wrongly;

2. the remarkable exposure latitude and low-light
sensitivity of the approx. 500 ukpound digital cameras I've
seen and borrowed;

3. time saving and improved quality control, cutting out the
processing & neg handling;

4. elimination of dust trouble;

5. cost (neglecting the initial capital outlay, which is too
much for me at the moment).

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: Odp: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x suggestion

[Alan Tyson]

Alan,

Don't you find that the colour balance is markedly altered
when you crop the preview and then scan it? I find that my
principal subject, somewhere inside the frame, is often more
colourful than its surroundings.

I find this on my own Scanwit. For this reason I alter the
'Crop|Buffer%' strip round the edge to 10% so that I
centre-weight the preview colour balance. It then changes
less radically if I crop the image. I haven't worked out
whether it's a 10% linear strip right round the outside of
the image (1-0.8*0.8, 36% of the pixels) or 10% of the
pixels. (Ed H?)

Or do you always work on the full image area and crop it
later? (Arguably this is an easier way to work.)

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Alan Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Majordomo leben.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:19 PM
Subject: re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x suggestion


> On my scanwit, and I would speculate that other none
exposure adjusting scanners as well, the preview and the
scan image are very close.  Close enough to use preview mem
while adjusting color settings to get an image that is great
in PS and requires very little tweaking.

Re: filmscanners: orange mask

[Alan Tyson]

Pete,

Do you reckon this method will work even when, as on the
Scanwit, the exposure given by the scanner for each raw scan
will vary from frame to frame?

If I want to try this method, should I work on each of the
R,G,B histograms separately, and set the B & W points to the
same value, or what? Any suggestions welcome!

Alan T.

- Original Message -
From: photoscientia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask


> The technique of starting from a raw scan, and applying a
generic correction
> over multiple frames is the only way to get even colour
and density across
> multi-frame panoramas.
>
> Rather than use curves, it's easier to use the levels
tool, and align both ends
> of the red, green, and blue histograms, IMHO.
>
> Regards,   Pete.

Re: filmscanners: Acer ScanWit 2740S

[Alan Tyson]

Mike,

I too am very happy with my Scanwit 2720S, regard it as
excellent value for money, and am delighted with its
results.

We should, however, mention to prospective purchasers that
it gives its own automatic exposure, calculated for the
whole frame, whether you want it or not. For this reason,
the manual exposure controls in Vuescan don't work with the
Scanwit. Other, more expensive, scanners have a command for
exposure control.

It is not, therefore, possible to do scans aiming
particularly at shadow or highlight detail. I have not found
this to be much of a problem, except that I can't
automatically get consistency of sky tone from one frame to
the next on panoramic shots, even when I've fixed the camera
exposure.

Other users have reported here that registration in multiple
pass scanning on the Scanwit is inaccurate. I have not found
this; blurring on mine is minimal when I use it to lessen
shadow blotches (which I won't call 'grain' or 'aliasing'
for fear of a 200-message thread ).

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Mike Gaston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Acer ScanWit 2740S
..

> I bought a Scanwit 2720S
...
> Well, as it turns out, I haven't seen anything to make me
want to upgrade.

Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

[Alan Tyson]

Ah! I've never tried it, so I didn't know that. My labels
using a Neato kit have always been well centred.

In that case, if our drives won't read the disk because it
wobbles, we should write another and try again (not a huge
expenditure), or buy cheaper labels with worse adhesive.

Maybe soaking in water to assist peeling of misplaced
labels, followed by slow & gentle drying, wouldn't do any
harm. Has anyone tried it?

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Dieder Bylsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alan Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage


> >You could always peel off the label and try
again>

> I chuckled a bit when I read this about peeling off a
labelthe > last time I did that, it took the shellac
right off the CD

Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

[Alan Tyson]

Tim,

You could always peel off the label and try again,  if a
disk doesn't read correctly. Surely an imbalance will show
immediately. Everyone should test their CD-Rs after writing
them, preferably in another drive. That 's a different issue
from the longevity of the data.

Have your conservation scientists any published work with
real data, to which I could refer, or  are they just
guessing, based on their knowledge of the technologies
involved, as I am?

We all need this information to keep our lovely images
pristine for our grandchildren, but I have the uncomfortable
feeling that everyone's guessing, and no-one knows. We need
some references to the scientific literature, don't we? Has
anyone got a tame information scientist who'll find out the
real state of the art for us?

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tim Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 2:46 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage


> The info I had from the conservation scientists who are
researching CD
> longevity and archival storage was; No sticky labels of
any kind (they both
> unbalance and lead to read and write errors, even round
ones 

Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

[Alan Tyson]

Michael,

All this stuff about CD-R durability is speculation at the
moment, sometimes well-informed, and sometimes ill-informed.

I'd give your support person's views a lot of weight if I
knew he'd properly researched the field, and had some data
or reasoning to back his judgement (rather than hearsay),
but otherwise I'd trust my own technical judgement.

My particular personal opinion, based on my relevant
scientific
background, is that there are plenty of things to worry
about over long-term storage on CD-R. However, chemical or
photon penetration of the metallic reflective layer from the
top (label) side is not high on this list, precisely because
it's an excellent chemical and optical barrier layer,
protecting the data from that side. It is, nevertheless,
very
vulnerable mechanically.

Use a recommended non-corrosive pen or a paper label, and
worry instead about still having a machine and operating
system that'll read the disk in 20 years time, or about the
dye data clouds and/or their enclosing polymer matrix
self-destructing. I think it'd be sensible to recopy
valuable & irreplaceable image files (keeping on-topic, you
understand) every few years.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:46 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage


a Plextor support
> person had said to me...that having labeled CDs (blank on
both sides)
> with a felt pen...cause problems with the data
> on the other side.  >

Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

[Alan Tyson]

Excellent summary info, thanks very much.

I still think the attenuation of visible & UV through the
top reflective layer will be enormous, so as to render it
insignificant relative to the other side.

In summer '99, for the total eclipse, I experimented with
viewing the sun through CDs, and found two together gave
comfortable viewing. I attach a small gif (edited from a
NASA eclipse web page) which makes the point quite well. The
full diagram covers 7 materials.

I used Mylar spectacles for my eyes and bits of floppy disk
for my cameras for the actual event. It's the IR coming
through visually dense filters that you have to watch out
for with your eyes.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Oostrom, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage


> I promised I would send some more info on the consumer
test that I had read.



 CDtrans.gif

Re: filmscanners: cd storage

[Alan Tyson]

Dear Jerry,

It would be fascinating to see the list, but even more
interesting to read the details of the results. I assume the
article's only available in Dutch, is it?

I hope they used very big sample sizes. I should expect the
failure rates to be so low as to need samples of hundreds
per brand. I should be most interested to hear what sort of
failure rates they found. Did the article specify the rates?
It would give us an idea of just how big a gamble we're
taking with our image storage.

Also, in my experience of writing & using CD-Rs, there's
much more variation between drives than between discs.
Faulty discs can be readable on some drives and not others.

So did they use some top class scientific equipment and
actually measure the vital statistics of the written data?
Or did they use retail consumer writing equipment for the
tests, in which case how did they eliminate variation
between drives?

BTW

The data are in the chemically sensitive layer on the
non-label (bottom) side, so a label will make no difference
to UV exposure. The reflective metal layer already offers
perfect protection from the top.

> good way to store the CD-Rs was in complete darkness
(seems trivial). If
> this was not going to happen then CD-Rs could benefit from
CD-labels as
> extra protection from light.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Oostrom, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: cd storage


> Coincidentally,
> a magazine in my country (consumentenbond, roughly
translated as consumer
> league) that tests all kinds of stuff just tested some 50
types of CD-Rs,

Re: filmscanners: What would you recommend?

[Alan Tyson]

Suggestions for a gentle (and low cost) introduction to film
scanning...

While your dad learns about digital imaging, any old flatbed
will do, on which he should scan his old prints (6x4 or
bigger) to start with, and make some enlargements. He's
likely to be pleased with the results, unless he's a very
fussy amateur photographer who does his own enlargements. If
the bundled image processing software isn't too good, try
PaintShopPro v7.

Meanwhile, he should use Kodak PhotoCD processing for the
next few films from his camera, giving him standard prints
to scan, but also some higher resolution images on CD to
play with.

If he likes this approach, he should consider getting a film
scanner, using all the advice available here. Ed Hamrick's
$40 Vuescan software is a nearly essential extra.

Good luck,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:27 PM
Subject: filmscanners: What would you recommend?


> Hi,
>
> My dad just got a new printer with which he can print
photos on, so now he is thinking of getting a scanner. He
wants to know what to get--a flatbed or a flatbed with an
adapter to do negatives?

Re: filmscanners: Prints using Acer ScanWit

[Alan Tyson]

I  too am a happy Scanwit user, and before that I used to
scan 6x4 enprints on a flatbed. On scanning prints on the
flatbed, I found that I could see an improvement on altering
scanner resolution from 300 to 400 pixels/inch, but none
beyond that.

Your 2550x3720 scan on a 7x10 print is about 360 ppi, so
it's comparable with paper resolution. Any bigger and you'll
start to see limitations of the scan rather than the paper.
You are roughly at the limit if you want your results to be
just as good as an optical photographic print from the
negative.

If that level of quality in bigger prints is essential,
you'll need more pixels (e.g., a 4000dpi scanner), which
will give you another 1.5x enlargement.  An important point
to remember is that you'll soon run out of pixels if you
start cropping the original scan.

How big you can go from your Scanwit results depends on (a)
how sharp and/or grainy your negs are, (b) viewing distance,
and (c) how fussy you are.  I have 14x21 inch inkjet mosaic
prints from my Scanwit hung around the house, and they're
fine for sharpness & grain because people stand several feet
away. They don't even notice the joins between the A4 sheets
unless I point them out.  These prints would, however,
elicit derisive laughter from many proper photographers.

Good luck,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Geoff Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 7:00 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Prints using Acer ScanWit

> I see all kinds of numbers suggested as the maximum
resolution
> that colour paper can resolve. My question is what size
can I
> enlarge to before the pixels become visible to the naked
eye?

Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour printing

[Alan Tyson]

I don't think I've made myself clear.

I *think* they may be identifying relatively underexposed
*regions* & boosting the (printed) brightness locally in
just those areas of the image, giving the same effect as
wet-chemical-age dodging. Art suggested a means of doing
this in his reply to my message...

>>two bit image (on or off, black or
clear).  A threshold level is selected to determine at what
intensity
the result flips from clear to black applying
levels to the "non-masked" or selected area to lighten those
shadows. <<

If I were designing the filter, I'd then twiddle the
brightness only for blocks that exceeded a certain size,
thereby leaving the rest of the otherwise satisfactory image
unaltered.

This is, of course, very different from any adjustment
applied to the whole image. It's addressing only relatively
underexposed *areas* of the image. Ed's Vuescan Help file
talks succinctly about the choice between highlight & shadow
detail when printing automatically...

>>The decision of whether to capture the intensity range of
the clouds or the person in the shadows ..usually made
by a computer in the film minilab when printing the
negative.  <<

What I hope Bonusprint's (Agfa's 'Dimax') LCD mask printers
are doing is looking for *big* blocks of dark tone, and
brightening them. It'd leave the rest of the image as it
was, but reveal the detail of 'the face under the hat'. This
would be an automatic attempt at what I used to do with...

>>the time-honoured method of waving your hands
about over the printing paper.<<

I'm asking the experts whether or not something like this,
that looks like an innovation to me,  is actually well
established already, and exists as a digital filter I can
acquire (or encourage Ed to adopt), to expedite the process
of inkjet printing from filmscans.

I know I can do this in image editing software; I'm after an
*automatic* method that works for many images.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour
printing


> Sounds good to me:) The C21st catches up with unsharp
masking at long last!
>

Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour printing

[Alan Tyson]

> This technique is totally unnecessary with scanning Alan.
> It doesn't do anything that you can't do better with the
curves or
> levels in Photoshop.

Yes, true, if it's a simple adjustment mask across the whole
image, but if it operates selectively on patches (cleverly
identified somehow) of predominantly dark tones, e.g., faces
shaded by hats, it's analogous to your...

> time-honoured method of waving your hands
> about over the printing paper

...which is rather different,  is it not? On a scanned
image, that requires much difficult work with a selection
tool, and I'm hoping they've got a good method for doing it
automatically.

I posted two films to Bonusprint today, to see for myself.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: photoscientia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour
printing

filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour printing

[Alan Tyson]

'Bonusprint', a mass-market photoprocessor in the UK, got
top marks in a recent review in 'Which?' consumer magazine,
so I looked at their web site (http://www.bonusprint.com/).

It says their Agfa Dimax printing machines use a
computerised LCD mask to reduce local contrast...

"Our Dimax printers overcome this problem by means of a
liquid crystal digital mask which preferentially selects out
dark, 'shadowy' areas, and prints them lighter- without
lightening any other areas of the print. In the same way,
any areas that are too light are detected and printed darker
without darkening the whole print."

It seems to me that they're using an algorithm to identify
substantial shadow areas and lighten them. Their impressive
example shows a sunlit beach image with a shadowed face,
before & after. However, I notice that the background
changes as well, so it might be a simple histogram twiddle.

Is this well-known technology? If it isn't simple contrast
reduction, and if it's identifying shadow areas accurately,
I'd like a simulation of this mask as a filter, added to
Vuescan and other scanning software, to avoid hours of
labour with selection tools, and selective histogram
adjustments.

What do all you experts out there think?

Alan Tyson

Re: filmscanners: (monitors)

[Alan Tyson]

Every few months I am persuaded to try again to calibrate my
monitor, using the various tools from an assortment of
websites.

My monitor (Taxan Ergovision 735 TCO99) has software to
adjust its RGB curves individually to get the various
dithering patterns to match. The results from the various
tools agree with each other pretty well.

When I do this, I always finish up with hopelessly washed
out over-bright images, from my own previous work or from
other folks' web images, in PSP7 or Photoshop 5LE (or
anything else). On the other hand, if I use the monitor's
default settings, adjusted only for black point, I get an
excellent representation on screen of what I'll get out of
my HP710C inkjet printer. So that's where I leave it.

I'm a retired scientist who likes to understand things. Can
anyone explain this anomaly, please?

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners:


> > Just a quick comment regarding monitor adjustment.
>

filmscanners: Reposted: RE: Distribution SW

[Alan Tyson]

(I think this message was lost in the post, as I was un- &
re-subscribing during the list transfer)

Phil,

You could consider the freeware program 'xnview'
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pierre.g/index.html). This is a
fully featured image viewer, including a good slide show
facility. If you distribute the author's complete package
(after asking his permission), you will be assisting him in
distributing it.

All that is actually necessary to use its facilities is to
put the 'xnview.exe' executable on your CDs, and run it from
the CD. However, shareware authors sensibly like their whole
intact download package distributed, and usually insist on
it.

'xnview' is similar to Ed Hamrick's shareware 'Vueprint',
which many on this list own and use by virtue of its
association with Vuescan, his excellent filmscanner
software. You could also try asking him if he has a solution
for your problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).

Good luck,

Alan Tyson

- Original Message -
From: PC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:23 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Distribution SW


> I'm looking for a way to place images on a CD ROM along
with whatever
> else would be needed

OT: List acronyms

[Alan Tyson]

Tony,

Years ago, when I and my pals were on CIX, ISTR a
concise dictionary of all the common and many rare mailing
list acronyms. You haven't seen it anywhere lately, have
you?

I fear this ancient language may have become extinct like
Anglo-Saxon and Latin, pushed out by modernisms such as
"USB", "ME" grocers' apostrophes and "it's" in its wrong
place.

TTFN
Alan T

> > > AIUI > >
>
> As I Understand It...






The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: questions

[Alan Tyson]

Come on! Tell us how you came to microwave a print by
accident. You didn't use it to oven wrap the neighbour's
cat, did you?

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: jeremy spence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: questions


> I accidentally microwaved a 2000p Matt archival print



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Vuescanwit tip

[Alan Tyson]

Jerry,

I wasn't aware that the Scanwit was particularly bad at
registration, as I found multiscanning worked well on the
few occasions I tried it. I think I remember someone here
6-9 months ago saying it was quite good.

Inspired by your message, I just tried it again with single
scans before and after a 3-pass multiscan, (a) in position
6, and (b) in position 1 of the filmholder.

In both positions, multiscan registration was not more than
one pixel in error, as features showed the same pixel sizes
in the multiscans as in the single scan. Edges in the
multiple scan versions showed a single pixel fringe of
intermediate colour, so were very slightly softened.

The absolute positions of objects, measured from the edge of
the Vuescan 'maximum' frame, differed in the single scans by
8 pixels before and 2 pixels after, compared with the
multiscan in carrier position 1. The difference was a single
pixel in position 6. I haven't repeated these experiments,
but the results seem pretty good to me.

Like you, I have to be careful inserting the strip and
cropping, but that's because the Scanwit film holder has
37.8mm between frames, and my ancient OM-10 thinks there
should be 38.1mm.

My current Scanwit dates from March 2000.

Regards

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Oostrom, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 9:21 AM
Subject: Vuescanwit tip


> Hi fellow scanwitters,
>
> as we are the unfortunate owners of a filmscanner that has
less precision in
> positioning the holder than most others



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Selection Shape in Photoshop?

[Alan Tyson]

Collin,

The crop tool and selection tool in Paint Shop Pro display
the aspect ratio on the status bar as you drag the box or
its edges. They also show the coordinates of top left and
bottom right, and the selected pixel dimensions.

I've just upgraded from PSP version 5 to v7, which has a
full set of histogram adjustments. I now feel little or no
need for Photoshop 5LE. The only thing I think I'll miss
occasionally is its 'Image>Adjust>Variations' box, which
allows side-by side comparison of a range of thumbnails.

PSP7 also has a new and excellent facility for laying out
multiple images on a single page (or correct placement of a
single image). This removes the only regular use I make of
the awful MS Publisher, so I might bin that as well.

Regards,

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Collin Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:55 PM
Subject: Selection Shape in Photoshop?


> specific aspect ratio, like if I am printing a 4x6, 8x10,
etc,
> select an area of the image that fits that shape.



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: labelling archive cdrs

[Alan Tyson]

I used Neato labels, applied with the supplied polycarbonate
centring device, on over a hundred  CDRs sent in 1997-99 to
a wide range of users. All them will have been used at least
once . No-one has complained about unplayable disks, and
this doesn't surprise me.

It was difficult or impossible to place the label
off-centre, because the applicator was quite precisely
machined and beautifully simple.

It had two components, (1) an inverted dish the diameter of
a CD, with a hole in the thick base the size of the hole in
the label, and (2) a machined piece shaped like a child's
spinning top. The fat bottom part fitted the hole on the
dish, and the thin top part fitted the hole in the CD. The
label went sticky side up on the dish, the CD sat label side
down on the spinning top, and then you dropped the spinning
top through the hole.

In the UK "Pressit" applicator sets are commonly available
for about 13 ukpounds. They look to me like a development of
"Neato", but the applicator has a spring in it.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: labelling archive cdrs


> Has anyone had problems with labelled CDRs in high speed
CDROM drives?
> (like 40X etc).  Slight offets in the label could cause
problems in theory.




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

[Alan Tyson]

Yes, but it seems to me the useful output will be
*combinations* of subject type, film, exposure, processing,
and scanner that have been demonstrated to give good
results.

Extrapolating from those to different combinations will be
rather difficult.

This is normal in the world of R&D. Almost no-one can ever
afford to do the huge number of experiments needed
rigorously to get at the 'truth'. Real-life development
scientists tinker until they find something that works, then
use informed inspiration to make improvements, i.e.,
thoughtful guesswork based on experience.

Alan T

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans


> Oh, come on.  If that's the only "right" attitude we might
as
> well all unsubscribe from the mailing list because any
information
> we might glean here is questionable and not worth risking.
>




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.