Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote > > >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple >> of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% >> view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view >> finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. >> >> The reason viewfinders do not show the whole frame is because the >> exception that the images will either be mounted in slide mounts or >> cropped during printing by the film carrier. >> >> So, unless you are using one of a very small group of cameras, that >> extra edge of the frame wasn't supposed to be in your composition >> anyway, and was a "bonus" that didn't show in your viewfinder. > > > Quite right as a general observation, Art. And thanks for the information that > there is a Contax SLR with a 100% viewfinder -- I didn't know about that. I can > add the Leicaflex to your list, and the three models of the Canon F-1. And maybe > Leicas in the R series, and perhaps the Pentax LX? > Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment ;-) Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do have them, are top of the line models... The feature costs $$, so only the "creme of the crop" gets that I agree with you that the real reason behind the mid and lower end cameras not being 100% was due to cost of trying to calibrate accurate viewfinders to film frame. The 92-86% numbers (I've even read of 90% or 89%) do allow for quite a "fudge factor" in the design. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Moreno Polloni wrote: >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple >> of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% >> view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view >> finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. > > > Just a correction: every Nikon I've used (F3, F4, F5) has had 100% > viewfinder coverage. And as far as I'm aware, so does the Canon EOS IV and > most of it's predecessors. Thanks to all for correcting my statement. It appears the 100% club is larger than memory served me. It is still the top of the line products, principally, but not as exclusive as I stated, for sure. For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
That's incredible. I thought only HP was asleep at the switch on this, with their HP Photosmart and S-20, both of which will destroy your sixth frame if you use a full 6 frame film strip. HP finally made the software limit intake to 4 or 5 neg strips to "resolve" the problem. Art Walter Nowotny wrote: > Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches > after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to > the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these > scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is > not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the > scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably > cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied > with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before > scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight > scratches across the whole film strip. > Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? > I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) > > Thanks! > Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote: > At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: > >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a >> couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which >> give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of >> camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to >> the film frame. > > > > Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former > for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I > never shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder > coverage I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 > and F5 have the same capability. > > Thanks for the update. I admit to being out of touch on this matter in newer cameras. I'm glad to see some of the manufacturers have gone back to the 100% viewfinder. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Is it that big a difference? We're speaking of the light angle differences which can allow for an exposed area due to the gap between the internal frame mask within the camera and the film plane... so, that's based upon how far the guide tracks stand out from the frame surface. On the Nikon I just looked at, the guide rails actually make up the top and bottom edge of the film frame mask, so the difference there is zero, the short edges do have a small gap, I'm guessing less than 1/32nd of an inch, assuming the film lies perfectly flat. How much difference in frame length could that make? Art Moreno Polloni wrote: >> For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% >> horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% >> as one can expect. > > > One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length > of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest > wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of > the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This > is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg > carriers.
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Walter Bushell wrote: > > Given the propensity of scanners to make large files, eg, 35mm at 2700 > with VueScan at 64 bits 50 meg *each*. OTOH I've seen pre orders being > taken for 24x writers. thought this might be of interest here. > > at > > http://www.us.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=70002669 > > TDK VeloCD 12x/10x/32x CD-RW EIDE for $119 shipped > > I'd jump on it but I bough a Samsung 12/10/32 yesterday for > $85 + shipping. > These prices are getting downright silly! Since the issue of CD-RW units came up, I'm wondering if anyone has happened upon any info in regard to the life span of the write laser (or other potentially "weak components" in these units. A local computer chain here regularly supplies the info that these units are lucky to last a couple hundred writes. Of course, that's just before they try to sell you their extended warranty, so I take this with a huge grain of salt. I was wondering if anyone has read any documented info on the real life span of CD-RW drives, or if people have personal experience as a basis. I haven't burned a huge amount, so I'm a bad example (about 100-150 at this point, including CDRW disks). Of course at $89 US, who cares, but mine cost me nearly $400 CAN for a 8x drive, and I'd like to think it will at least amortize out at $1 a disk for the burning part. Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
I don't mean to question your authority on this, since I don't own a 2740 and you probably have worked with one, however, I am trying to understand the mechanism of this situation. I understand that dICE works by doing a comparison of the infrared image and the "visible" image and does some sort of subtractive process, to assume that stuff that is on the one and not the other is likely dust, dirt, fingerprints, scratches, etc. I also understand that the concept of multipass is to "average out" the random noise a CCD produces in the visible spectrum, by basically assuming any pixel which alters value through a number of scans is likely an artifact of noise rather than "real" data. What I'm not clear on is this... Does the infrared scan tend to have similar amounts af shadow noise during its data acquisition? In other words, is it really necessary to do 4 or 8 or 16 infrared scans of an image to get a more accurate infrared scan of the image? If so, wouldn't that mean that dICE actually adds a certain amount of random noise (or random artifacting) to the scan when doing a since pass scan. After all, if the visible light scan makes an image and during that, the shadow area data contains a certain amount of erronious random "noise" artifacting, and then the dICE infrared scan does the same thing, wouldn't that introduce a second level of errors, since the dICE scan would have different random pixel data (noise) than that of the visible light scan, and when the subtraction formula occurs, some data would either be subtracted that should not have been, or not subtracted that should have been? Again, I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. I'm therefore also guessing that taking one infrared scan and then simply using it as the subtractive model for all the multi-visible light scans would make little difference in the final result. Ed, if you have access to an Acer 2740 and can write you software to do this (take one infrared scan, and then average all the visible light scans and then do the subtractive process once) you will find almost no difference in the final result, and probably no meaningful difference. Coming from this with no way of documenting it, but using "gut science" ;-) only, I very interested if such a test could be carried out. This would tremendously help any 2740 owners when doing multi-scans with dICE. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/3/2001 10:55:46 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan >> separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the >> original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also >> scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. > > > There's no point to increasing the bit depth of the RGB data > if the IR data doesn't have the bit depth similarly increased. > The two are combined when doing dust removal. > > This is why there are the same number of passes for the > RGB data as the infrared data. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Larry Berman wrote: > I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is > going to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by > July. Buy em while you can. > > Larry > Did they say why? Is there a sudden demand, has a company stopped production, is there a shortage of tellurium (if they still use that) or some other component, are the manufacturers trying to increase profits??? Should I invest in CDRW stock? ;-) Did they mention if it is all types or just the '4X and over' variety which use different technology and can't be used with the 4X and under CDRW mode drives? Inquiring minds want to know ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Hi Ed, Again, not to be argumentative, but, I do understand it is the same CCD. That isn't the issue. We know that, for instance, typically the blue scan is noisier than the green or red, right? I have no idea what type of response the infrared sensitivity of the CCD is, but I'm (guessing) that the infrared scan looks nothing like the visible light spectrum scan, and isn't influences at all in the same way to shadow density of the visible light scan. Have you tried my suggestion just to see if it makes any visible difference? (perhaps just doing a compare of the IR scans in Photoshop might give a clue). Can you perhaps post an example of what the infrared scan looks like of a typical image? If you are stating that the CCD has the same response to IR light as to visible light, then I am guessing the dICE system is adding a certain amount of random noise to the scan, in fact, it is, in effect doubling it in a one scan situation, since each scan introduces a different set of noise and the they are subtracted from one another. And again, the question I asked last time begs to be answered: If the visible light scan introduces erroneous random "noise" artifacting in the shadow area data, and then the dICE infrared scan does the same thing, (capturing different noise and random errors) wouldn't that introduce a second level of errors, since the dICE scan would have different random pixel data (noise) than that of the visible light scan, and when the subtraction formula occurs, some data would either be subtracted that should not have been, or not subtracted that should have been? I think it may be time to ask our friend from ASF for some comments about how CCD's respond to IR, etc. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/4/2001 10:38:06 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light >> scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. > > > The exact same CCD and A/D converter is used to scan the > image in infrared and visible light. The only difference between > the two scan passes is which lamp is turned on. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Used Nikon LS-20 for sale
Karsten Petersen wrote: > Hi Art, > > >> Can I ask you two silly questions? >> >> 1) Why did Nikon charge you DM351 to fix a scanner which was operating >> within the normal "technical limitations" of the scanner? > > > They claimed that they have cleaned it, and that it was working properly > AFTER their action. I could not make out any difference in the results > before and after, judging from test scans. > > >> 2) Why would you spend DM351 to have a scanner serviced which you were >> going to put on sale for less than the servicing cost? > > > Simple: at the time I had it serviced, I had not intended to sell it, > because I had hoped that the service would remedy the problem. I've had had > an extended discussion with Nikon's service agant about the whole affair, > but they were uncooperative. After that, I didn't pursue the matter further > because I considered it a waste of time, nerves, and money. > > Thanks, > > Karsten Hi Karsten, You have my sympathies. They must have international training for their service people. Your story was repeated here by Nikon Canada in my dealings with them with their camera service division. I've also given up with them. Art
Re: filmscanners: The whole frame
Dave Suurballe wrote: > Good idea; certainly worth considering... > > I'm scanning now with a Kodak RFS 3600, and it doesn't scan outside the > standard frame dimensions. > > Dave Speaking of the RFS-3600, Kodak is again lowering prices on it. They are now offering 3600 frames of film (100 rolls of 36 exp) Ektachrome or T-Max or Tri-X or a couple of color neg films free with the purchase. You have to acquire 10 rolls at a time, I believe. Art
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Jim Snyder wrote: > on 6/5/01 7:01 AM, Larry Berman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is going >> to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July. Buy >> em while you can. >> > > or wait until September when the first DVD+RW drives come out. > > Jim Snyder I believe they are already on sale. Art
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Larry Berman wrote: > I can't be the only one with this magazine. > > The shortages are blamed on three things: > Soaring demands > Consolidation among CD manufacturers > High patent royalties > > Larry > > Well, it is pretty obvious they have been dumping them on the market. The prices here in Canada are close to zero with rebates. And that's with a $.21 levy/disk on them, being paid to "top 40" musicians and record companies for "loss of revenue" due to CD-Rs being used to 'illegally' record CDs. I was wondering about why the problem was just CD-RW, but you have now corrected that statement. Of course, if everyone panics and buys up the store stock on hand, the prices will probably go up... a little self-fulfilling prophecy. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: Kodak RSF 3600 (was:The whole frame
Lynn Allen wrote: > > Advantix, it seems to me, is a perfect example of "over-reaching." It's a wonderful concept, but they have few "real" cameras to back it up--and established camera-makers are not *about* to forget 110 and The Disc. Their digital cameras and systems show similar disregard for important Real-World concepts. > > "And so it goes." :-) > > Best regards--LRA > Well, not to be argumentative... heck, yes, to be argumentative, why not.;-) I think there are more APS cameras on the market made by the major camera manufacturers, than there were 110 or disc cameras. Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, etc, all have APS models, and usually several to choose from. But you are absolutely correct that Kodak has a business plan involving introducing new formats when sales begin to drop. However, the idea of giving away 100 rolls of film to sell a scanner is a new one for them. Of course, they keep their lab clients happy, by providing them business, while selling them chemistry and papers (this stuff comes without processing, I'm quite sure). Art
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Lynn Allen wrote: > > > There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the 10-cent CD-R. > > PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) > > Best regards--LRA I realize that CD-Rs are not directly a film scanner issue, but I'm sure we all are using them to store oure images at this point, so I;d like to make a few other comments about the matter of CD-R quality. Some of us rely upon these disks to store our very precious data, some of which is literally unreplacable. We use them to back up our computers, and to store our images, among other things. I think we all know that they don't last forever, and we also know that some storage method or media will come along and ecilpse the CD format over the next 10-20 years, if not sooner. The comment about the small companies making CD-Rs and them going for $.10 each is important to consider. The number of CD-R manufacturers is far greater than the brands you see on the shelves. Why? Because many of those "branded" products are not made by the company on the label at all. The "brand" companies simply contract companies to produce disks which eitehr meet their specificatiions, or at least have their name and logo on them. Whne someone says "I buy 'Maxmembatim' disks and they are good/bad, even taking the issue of the burner, software and computer configuration they use, usually teh brand name is relatively meaningless. The reason is because these companies by from whomever can meet their purchasing requirements at the time. I have in front of me 4 "brand name" disks whcih all have the same brand name on them. Every one of them is made with a different dye type and different reflective surface, and when I go into them with a little utioity that reads the name of the manufacturer, not one of them says it was made by the company whose name is on the disk and packaging, in fact all four are made by different companies. TWO stories, one short one long: I bought a 50 spindle of disks. I'll even mention the name since they obviously have no pride as a company anyway. PINE Technology, sold by Samtack. It was one of my first CD-R purchases, and at the time disks were expensive, so I tried a basically unbranded product. The disks didn't even have a label on the non-recordable side, so one had to look carefully at both sides to know how to place them in the CD-R burner. The dye was almost clear, and the disks were silver. These were the first disks I burned, and of the 50, 12 failed. I throught the problem was either my software or my nice (and costly) Plextor drive. It wasn't until I spend some time with Plextor's chief engineer that we were able to determine, via the error codes, that all the problems were media related. Those disks came with a one year warranty, so I emailed the company and requested a refund on the 12 disks (that's nearly a 25% failure rate, and proved a big waste of my time to have to redo all those disks). They informed me that they didn't refund money, but would ship me replacement disks. And they did, by Fed-X no less. They asked me for the bad disks back, which I offered to ship them at their expense. Then they lost interest. The interesting part is the disks they sent me as warranty replacements. They were a different product completely, claiming "Ultra Speed 12X" on the label. They sent me 15 disks. Of them, 3 had visible defects in the reflective coating (I'm taking numerous holes varying from pin price sized to paperclip wire diameter). So that's a 20% reject rate before even bruning any). When I emailed the guy asking if he thought that was an acceptable rate of visible defects, and asking if the company even had a QC system... he ignored me. These disks are sold in Canada under the PINE (and other brands) at Radio Shack and Staples, and I wouldn't go near them again. The LON story: (Yes, the one above was the short one ;-)) I am, this very day, involved in a disagreement with a major CD-R "brand", which has been going on for over one month of calls, faxes, emails, etc. regarding the fact that I bought these disks (in early 2000 -- I have about 500 stockpiled) and when I bought them, I did so becaus ethey showed a gold disk on the box, and they indicated a "Lifetime Warranty" on outer packaging as well. It was only recently that I broke open the master pack of one and to my surprise, the inner jewel case info stated that the disk had a one year warranty from date of purchase (in other words, it had already passed). However, the Jewel case image also showed a gold disk. Then I opened one up. Turns out iyts a silver disk (cold be aluminum or silver or who kn
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Phil wrote: > Hello All, > > Two weeks ago I e-mailed the list to ask you all about making fast, decent > low res scans. > > I went ahead and purchased the Acer Scanwit 2740S. > > I spent the first half of this day struggling with SCSI drivers and Acer > scanning software. I could not get the scanner to work. Finally, I called > Acer. > > It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works > on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 > additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. > This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI card, and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would think. WHich Mac are you using? OK, the first question is: Is anyone on this list using an Acer 2720 or 2740 with a Mac? And if so, what are they doing about interfacing. Do you know just what the problem is? Do other PCI cards usually work in Multi-platform situations? Why are Mac SCSI cards so expensive (at least ones which work with the Acer) > I'm really really upset now. I'm struggling with Acer "Customer Service" on > the telephone. > Well, at least they answer the phone which is more than I can say for some companies... > I believe that Acer should indicate somewhere- on their website, in the > scanner's instruction manuals, anywhere at all, that their PCI SCSI card is > useless in a Mac. The "Customer Service" woman herself is telling me now > that "it should work!" This is because even at Acer itself, there is no > indication anywhere, on literature or electronically, that although the > 2740S is Mac "compatible," it can't use the Acer SCSI card included with the > scanner. The retailers don't know this either- but since retail sales > people often don't know much about technical specs anyway, they rely on the > information given to them by the manufacturer- i.e. Acer. I'm actually surprised to here this. I thought the Acer was Mac compatible as it comes out of the box, and that would make me assume the SCSI card would also work. > > I am very upset, and sorry to share this negative feeling with other human > beings. If someone has some Zen philosophy to share with me, I would > appreciate it. > Well, that depends... if you like the Nepalese style of Zen, I suppose you could murder the royal family to get yourself into power and then claim it was an "accident"... (sorry, I'm sure it isn't very funny for the people of Nepal, but it is certainly an odd situation occurring there). My form of Zen (which I studied, BTW, which just goes to prove it isn't always successful) ;-) : Z= Zonk someone (or your dog) either verbally or physically E= Eat comfort food until you are sick to your stomach N= Never give up Lick your wounds, repeat as needed. I usually wear down my opponent until they are either babbling incoherently or they hand me a blank check (or both) ;-) These techniques are particularly effective if you don't mind looking twice your age, and dying at 45 years of age. Lastly, I will remind anyone who has been on this (or was it the scan@leben?) group for a year or more, that I had a long drawn out debate with Austin Franklin about the problematic nature of SCSI implementation, due to a mixture of the many versions, the dozens of cables and adapters, the different protocols, and the general lack of industry standards. I have four SCSI adapters in 2 different computers, and as much as I like what they do (and when they work, they work well) configuring them took years off my life I'm never getting back! And, Oh yes, Try smiling! Art > Phil > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Lynn Allen wrote: > > > There was another significant reason listed: a lot of small companies geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at bankruptcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the 10-cent CD-R. > > PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) > > Best regards--LRA I realize that CD-Rs are not directly a film scanner issue, but I'm sure we all are using them to store our images at this point, so I'd like to make a few other comments about the matter of CD-R quality. Some of us rely upon these disks to store our very precious data, some of which is literally irreplaceable. We use them to back up our computers, and to store our images, among other things. I think we all know that they don't last forever, and we also know that some storage method or media will come along and eclipse the CD format over the next 10-20 years, if not sooner. The comment about the small companies making CD-Rs and them going for $.10 each is important to consider. The number of CD-R manufacturers is far greater than the brands you see on the shelves. Why? Because many of those "branded" products are not made by the company on the label at all. The "brand" companies simply contract companies to produce disks which either meet their specifications, or at least have their name and logo on them. When someone says "I buy 'Maxmembatim' disks and they are good/bad, even when taking the issue of the burner, software and computer configuration they use out of the equation, usually the brand name is relatively meaningless. The reason is because these companies buy from whomever can meet their purchasing requirements at the time. I have in front of me 4 "brand name" disks which all have the same brand name on them. Every one of them is made with a different dye type and different reflective surface, and when I go into them with a little utility called CDR Identifier -downloadable freeware at: www.gum.de/it/download/english.htm that reads the name of the manufacturer, not one of them says it was made by the company whose name is on the disk and packaging, in fact all four are made by different companies. TWO stories, one short one long: I bought a 50 spindle of disks. I'll even mention the name on the outside label since they obviously have no pride as a company anyway. PINE Technology, sold by Samtack. It was one of my first CD-R purchases, and at the time disks were expensive, so I tried a basically unbranded product. The disks didn't even have a label on the non-recordable side, so one had to look carefully at both sides to know how to place them in the CD-R burner. The dye was almost clear, and the disks were silver. These were the first disks I burned, and of the 50, 12 failed. I thought the problem was either my software or my nice (and costly) Plextor drive. It wasn't until I spend some time with Plextor's chief engineer that we were able to determine, via the error codes, that all the problems were media related. Those disks came with a one year warranty, so I emailed the company and requested a refund on the 12 disks (that's nearly a 25% failure rate, and proved a big waste of my time to have to redo all those disks). They informed me that they didn't refund money, but would ship me replacement disks. And they did, by Fed-X no less. They asked me for the bad disks back, which I offered to ship them at their expense. Then they lost interest. The interesting part is the disks they sent me as warranty replacements. They were a different product completely, claiming "Ultra Speed 12X" on the label. They sent me 15 disks. Of them, 3 had visible defects in the reflective coating (I'm taking numerous holes varying from pin prick sized to paperclip wire diameter). So that's a 20% reject rate before even burning any). When I emailed the guy asking if he thought that was an acceptable rate of visible defects, and asking if the company even had a QC system... he ignored me. These disks are sold in Canada under the PINE (and other brands) at Radio Shack and Staples, and I wouldn't go near them again. The LON story: (Yes, the one above was the short one ;-)) I am, this very day, involved in a disagreement with a major CD-R "brand", which has been going on for over one month of calls, faxes, emails, etc. regarding the fact that when I bought these disks (in early 2000 -- I have about 500 stockpiled) I did so because they showed a gold disk on the box, and they indicated a "Lifetime Warranty" on outer packaging as well. It was only recently that I broke open one master pack and to my surprise, noticed the inner jewel case paperwork stated that the disk had a one year warranty from date of purchase (in other words, it had already passed). However, the Jewel case image
Re: filmscanners: Hazy bleed in hi contrast blacks on LS2000
1st question: How many people smoke near where the scanner is located? Or cook fried foods? Or was the unit moved that day from a cold to warm place? The most common cause of halos in a scanner which seemed fine in the past, is an accumulation of residue on the lenses optics of ccd surface. Sometimes it could be water condensation from moving the scanner into a new environment or if you have a very steamy situation (hey, just what kind of images are these anyway ;-)) but if it is that, it will resolve in a few hours. Of course, if you don't normally scan high contrast images with a lot of black, you might not have noticed that this problem was developing over time (residue on the optics). Before panicking, however, it could be improper exposure. All CCD scanners suffer from some blooming, and this can be made worse by incorrect setting causing overexposure, which can occur with a lot of black background and the scanner using autoexposure. Assuming, however, that the part of the image that isn't black looks properly exposed, it likely isn't that. If the non-black portion is overexposed, you need to reset the white and black points manually before scanning, and rescan. Otherwise, it sounds like it may need a trip to your friendly Nikon service facility, which will likely charge you close to the resale value of the scanner to clean it. ;-) Actually, I think they charge about $200 US. Like any optical products, (and most electronic, as well) having them in smoky environments is asking for functional problems down the road. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi All > > We have been using the LS2000 for some time now and have been very pleased > with the results. Just recently however we have put through a batch of > slides > with subjects against black backgrounds. The scans have all got a hazy halo > round all the bright areas such that on an A4 print there is about 15 - > 20mm > around the bright area which is less than total black. > > Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any idea what might be > causing this? > > Many thanks > Chris > > Chris Parks > Image Quest 3-D > The Moos > Poffley End > Witney > Oxon > OX8 5UW > England > Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 > Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 > Web: www.imagequest3d.com
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Nick Taylor wrote: > Sorry about the off topic post, but I think that most everyone > that uses a film scanner also has some printer experience. > > I'm considering a replacement for my Epson Stylus Color 800 > inkjet printer. Two printers have been highly recommended to > me, the Epson Photo Stylus 1280 and the Olympus P-400. Does > anyone here have experience with either or both of these > printers? I would appreciate any and all comments, experiences, > suggestions, flames, etc. > > Thanks, > -Nick T. I have not used either printer. The 1280 is an upgrade(?) of the 1270, I believe. Be aware that most of the high end Epson printers are now using the imbedded chip in the ink cartridge. Unless you are going to use one of the techniques to defeat this (via software or hardware) you will be stuck with Epson's ink cartridges and their inks, meaning expense, narrow ink choices, and if Epson either goes bankrupt or decided to stop making your ink cart, you'd have an orphaned printer. If any of these concern you, the newer Epson printers may not be a good idea. Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Well, I could if I had a scanner which did IR scans, but I don't ;-) Could someone please send me an IR scan of an image (slide or neg, just tell me which it is) to look at? I'd like to see what IR "sees" Perhaps that might help me to better understand this whole process. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/5/2001 5:28:40 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> Can you perhaps post an example of what the infrared scan looks like of >> a typical image? > > > You can do this yourself by setting "Files|TIFF file type" to "16 bit > Infrared". > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Richard N. Moyer wrote: > One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) > cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies include > "SCSI" cards which are/were not conformant with the standards. This is > very important (conformance with the Standard), and goes back to the > discussion about "Open" and "Control". The IEEE standards are long and > complex, and technical, including the various ramifications of the SCSI > Standard. Companies have often offered "abbreviated" SCSI (really > shouldn't even use the term SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the > standard, to cheapen the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. > They didn't tell you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, > who, more often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most > of these "stunted" cards would connect only the scanner included in the > package, and would never connect more than one device on a chain in > accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of companies who did > this, some might surprise you. They did what they thought they could get > away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to find out "that a penny saved - > - - -". The same thing has happened with software. Yes there are > Standards at play here to, one of which you are using now - MIME used in > e-mail. And the biggest abuser was - - guess who? > > Could it be Satan? (Many know him as Bill?) The above situation is what I suspected might be the case, but, I'll give an example of the other side. My UMAX scanner came with a DTC card, which Umax indicated would only work with their scanner. UMAX North America's web site claimed the same thing. However, on researching further the UMAX UK site was kind enough to mention that with a different driver, the card would work with most SCSI products and support up to 6 other devices, also. It took some work to configure, since it required some jumpers be moved (I was luck that my card had the jumpers, apparently many versions didn't and one would have to cut or solder wires). It does work, and I'm running my Zip drive on it, and my UMAX scanner. Art
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
You are confusing Acer with Microtek, who is the manufacturer of the Polaroid SS 4000 scanner. I'm fairly sure not even the Microtek and Polaroid versions can use interchangeable software, due to some built in code that is checked for. Art Richard N. Moyer wrote: > I could be wrong, but doesn't Acer make the Polaroid scanner, and if so, > would not the drivers from this machine work on Acer. > > Might ask Polaroid - - > >> List, >> >> I thank you all very much for your information and advice. My last >> two days >> have been painful and difficult, and I think I really understand now what >> Art meant when he wrote that "configuring them [SCSI devices] took >> years off >> my life I'm never getting back!" I pray for USB and Firewire now. I >> would >> like to obtain a divorce from SCSI forever. >> > huge snip ---
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
In light of some of the recent comments in regard to Acer scanners, and being that Honda Lo, the Acer rep who was at one point monitoring this list expressed interest a few months back in getting feedback about the products, I thought it might be a good idea to repeat his email address. People who wish to communicate directly with Acer about quality, software, service or other issues should write to Honda Lo at Acer. His email address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Art Todd Radel wrote: > Art wrote: > >> This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI card, >> and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would think. > > > SCSI cards are an exception. I'm not sure about other types of PCI devices. > As others have pointed out, it's partly because the cards contain an EPROM > that allows booting off SCSI drives (and a BIOS as well in the case of a > SCSI card designed for a PC), and such a boot ROM would need to be written > for a specific platform. But it's not only that, as even cards which do not > have any booting capability at all can still be incompatible across > platforms. The DEC Alpha platform uses PCI but is not compatible with most > PCI SCSI cards, boot ROM or not. > > Related question: many of the Mac- and Alpha-compatible PCI SCSI cards have > the same chipsets on them that PC-compatible SCSI cards do (e.g. Adaptec > 2940, Symbios 895). On cards without a boot ROM, I wonder what the > difference could be? What makes a card incompatible with a Mac if there's no > EPROM or BIOS? I am most emphatically not a Mac person, so I don't know. > > > >> I'm actually surprised to here this. I thought the Acer was Mac >> compatible as it comes out of the box, and that would make me assume the >> SCSI card would also work. > > > The 2740 packaging is misleading in many ways. The box also claims that the > scanner is compatible with Win2K, and there is a Win2K driver for the SCSI > card on the CD-ROM, but if you call Acer you'll find out that they will not > support the use of their own scanner, their own SCSI card, and their own > driver on Win2K. Why provide a driver at all then? > > Of course, these are the same support reps who didn't know what a SCSI > terminator was, and suggested that I change the scanner device ID to 7, so I > wouldn't look to them for any kind of SCSI support anyway. :( > > Personally, I tossed Acer's SCSI card into the closet and hooked the 2740 up > to an Initio 9100UW card. > > > >> I have four SCSI adapters in 2 different computers, and as much as I >> like what they do (and when they work, they work well) configuring them >> took years off my life I'm never getting back! > > > Don't get me started. I could tell many war stories about the SCSI problems > I've seen on everything from midrange HP and Sun boxes to workstations to > PC's and Mac's. > > As you can probably imagine, I'm really pulling for FireWire to become > popular. Quickly. :-) > > -- > Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together > http://www.schwag.org/ > > PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt
Re: filmscanners: open and control
B.Rumary wrote: > > Yes I heard about that on. Apparently the copyright on Mickey Mouse cartoons is > about to run out and Disney are pushing the line that it would be un-American if > a "national icon" could be copied by nasty foreigners, etc.! They want a special > exception to copyright laws, just for them, although I'm sure all the other mega > corporations would soon be jumping on this band wagon! I wouldn't worry about "other corporations"... Disney has that covered... ...they've bought them all over the last few years ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever) do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou? Art shAf wrote: > Dave writes ... > > >> ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the >> same problems with excessive dust and scratches as >> on the old scanners, ... > > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and > scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. > > shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Not being a "Mac" person, I'm a bit out of my league, but Acer indicates the SCSI card they provide is "proprietary", and will not work with other devices. I don't know if this is just a software driver matter, or if they really have some unique SCSI protocols. Maybe Ed Hamrick can shed some light, since I think he's analyzed the SCSI command set with the Acer products. Art Shough, Dean wrote: > There is no need to buy an expensive UltraSCSI PCI card for use with a > scanner. Try the Adaptec 2906 for under $50. Works great for me with my > Minolta Scan Dual on both my old PowerBase 180 and on my newer G4/500. > > Scanners use the original narrow and slow SCSI protocols. The only reason > to buy the fast, wide, LVD SCSI cards is if you want to set up a RAID array > of SCSI disks - but then you don't want to put the scanner or any other > narrow, slow devices on the same card.
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Raymond Carles wrote: > You're comparing two VERY different beasts here! > > While the Epson is an inkjet printer, the Olympus is a fast dye > sublimation (not inkjet) printer, one can use to print directly from a > digital camera, no computer needed... This is a good point, although the differences are getting "blurred" these days, as inkjets get faster, and the ink costs go up, and the dot size decreases. Also the 6 color inkjets make the image so close to continuous tone, that again the lines are blurred. With more archival inks for inkjets and better UV protective layers on Dyesub, the permanence is about the same. Further still, there are a number of stand alone inkjet printers (Epson/Lexmark(under Kodak label)/HP (Photosmart series) now on the market, that use an interface built in to them that you can slip the flash memory of a digital camera without a computer in between. The main differences, practically speaking are: Usually, cost of materials on Dye sub are higher, and they also are consistent. Most use the same amount of materials if you are printing a dot in the center of a 8 x 10 sheet or a full image edge to edge. Inkjet printers use ink only where needed, not a dye sheet for each of 3 or 4 colors (CMY or CMYK) Usually, dye subs are limited to a maximum size in each dimension, which inkjets often allow for very long or unlimited length, but a limited width. Dye sub require very specialized media, while inkjets can provide a great variety of papers. Dye sub usually do a poor job with text, while inkjets provide very good text. Most dye sub are 300-400 dpi, but provide true 24 bit (16 million color) per addressable dot, while inkjets are higher resolution, but require a number of dots to emulate full color. That's why the text looks better on inkjet. Speed is similar for similar sized images at this point. Making test prints is very costly on a Dyesub, unless it uses special "ring around" software or some other type of test pattern (and usually still require a full page printout), because you can not make a "small" or partial print without using the full dye sheets. Some dye sub printers have tried using ribbons of dye sheets rather than full continuous sheets, but they had problems with banding. The benefit of inkjet (for me at least) is I can do tests using minimal consumables, over and over, if I need to in order to get very accurate color rendition. I don't know if dye subs and ICC profiles have improved tremendously, but when Kodak was pushing them a few years box, they were having some problems with color management. There is also less throw away waste with an inkjet, especially if you can recycle or refill your ink carts. Art
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner owners are on this list. The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older scanners? All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust, dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as possible. ;-) When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used. Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear. When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners. The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent scanner with a non-LED light source. So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is better or worse than yours. I do know that yours is more expensive. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: > Rob Geraghty wrote: > >> Dave wrote: >> >>> Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >>> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems >>> with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this >>> has been improved, and if so, by how much. >> > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > Isaac
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
AR Studio wrote: > > Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. > > Does that help? > > Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust > than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 > and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly > the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have > excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost > any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get > blurred. > > The whole "Nikon scanners accentuate dust" thing is just FUD > (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick I find this an interesting statement. Maybe Nikon owners are more particulatetophobic? I hardly ever hear from SS4000 owners complaining bitterly about spotting or wishing they had purchased a Nikon for dICE. In fact, several have mused publicly about Nikon's owners comments about the absolute need for dICE on the Nikons. To the point that resolution comparisons are made between the SS4000 scan (without dICE, since it isn't an option) and the Nikon scan WITH dICE as a fair base point. I have no idea how much an IR channel and light source plus the ASF license add to the cost, but I would think Polaroid would have been browbeaten into providing dICE had it been such a problem without it. I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow the whistle. Everything part of my intuition say the Nikon must have more surface defect emphasis without dICE than the others. I don't have either scanner to work from, but I have read thousands of postings and this is certainly the impression I am left with even discounting company reps professional bias. I'd love to hear from others who have experience with either or (even better) both scanners and who doesn't have an ongoing professional relationship with either or both manufacturers. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent, low res scans
Richard N. Moyer wrote: > Well, you have identified two of them. > > On looking at the post header, which reads: > From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 > Netscape6/6.0 Well, first of all, it just goes to show how much info is transferred just in the header. Is it really necessary for the internet to work to have the type of OS I am using and the mailer/browser I use? > > I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a few > things, but OutLook Express which shipped bundled with Windows 95 was > the most notorious violator of the MIME Standard. All this has been > documented. In MS's defense, they claimed that the group that was > responsible for OutLook was under "undue" time constraints, and "did not > have ample time to complete the job." which they belatedly tried to fix > with a series of patches. But never did, and by the time Windows 98 came > out, they simply came out with a new version. > I'd never use Outlook Express. It seems to have a sign on its back which reads "Infect me with a virus, please". As to MS's excuse... have they ever released anything that didn't require a patch to fix? (not saying they got to actually producing the patch, mind you, just that it required one to fix). Art
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Rob Geraghty wrote: > "Nick Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> my order for the Epson 1280. > > > Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290 > elsewhere? > > Rob Oh gawd, Epson and their numbering system! I think I made an error in my previous comments about the 1280... Originally the first digit on the 3 digit number and first two digits on the 4 digit numbers indicated the class of printer and carriage size. 200, II: 720 dpi 2 carts 300: 720 dpi integrated black and color cart 400, 440: 720 (2 carts) 4 color 500: 720 dpi 4 color 600, 640, 660: 1440 dpi 4 color 700: 1440 6 color photo 800, 850: 1440 business class 4 color 900: 1440 speed class 4 color 1160: 1440 11+ inch wide 4 color 1200: 1440 11+ inch wide 6 color 1500, 1520: "wide carriage" 4 color 3000: 1440 "wider carriage" 4 color Then there are the 2000p (pigmented 6 color 12" wide) The 5000 (proofer dye) and 5500 (proofer pigmented) The 7000 24" dye and 7500 24" pigmented The 9000 ??" dye and 9500 ??" pigmented But over time things have become completely ridiculous; The 740, 750, 760 are 4 color (1440 dpi) The 780, 880 and 980 which are 2880 dpi 4 color (780 is new to me, so I'm jumping to conclusions here) The 777 was a 4 color printer at 1440. The 1280 (which I have yet to see) is probably an upgrade to the 1200. (in which case, I made an error in an earlier posting as I indicated the 1280 as an upgrade to the 1270. I believe the 1290 is the upgrade to the 1270, and the 1280 is likely an upgrade to the 1200 at 2880 dpi) I think I also saw a 1180, which would be a 2880 dpi upgrade to the 1160 (4 color 11+ inch carriage). The 870 and 1270 are 6 color "fade resistant" chipped cart, and I think the 890 and 1290 are the upgrades to them. I don't know what they did to upgrade them. The numbering system was further messed up by some method of distinguishing between the chipped and unchipped carts. Even Epson customer service has a hard time keeping up these days. I suggest you try Epson's website at www.epson.com The North American one (at least used to) have all the current printers with description. I give up! Art At one point the odd tens place meant a 6 color printer (750, 870, 1270, etc) Then they came out with the 670 and 777, so that no longer complied. Then the 70 and 80 and 90 was supposed to indicate the "chipped cart". But the 900 and 980 use the same cart.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
Johnny Deadman wrote: > Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. > I don't know exactly what you mean by "do mini-labs "read" emulsion types before printing negs" If you mean do they read for each subtle change of emulsion a manufacturer makes, then your answer is correct. If you mean do they have a starting point that is based upon the emulsion dye base, the answer USED TO BE absolutely. Our Noritsu unit had something like 32 "channels", each one was pre-programmed for a specific emulsion dye base. As new emulsions became available, I programmed them myself, if they weren't provided by the manufacturer. Today, I think newer machines just read the blank film area and make an automatic correction. With faster computers and more sophisticated software it is no longer really necessary to have a base filter pack programmed into the machine for each film type. That means they do not correct for difference responses of the emulsion layers, or characteristics of the color balance of the film, but just attempt to come up with a "zero" point, so that if you were to make a print for a 18% grey card, you'd get something approaching a print that looked like 18% grey. Unless one considers the sensitivity peculiarities of a specific film as a type of defect to be corrected for (all films suffer from their own versions of reciprocity errors, as well), then it would be best not to correct in complex profile of the film. Kodak used to offer two versions of scans for PCD. One was a base correction type that did not alter for film characteristics. The other was an averaging type that attempted to make all films look the same regardless of the emulsion type. The reason for this was simple. For a pro photog who wanted to maintain the integrity of the film's characteristics, the base type was good, but for a person creating a PCD presentation where they had multiple sources (different age, emulsions and film types -including maybe both slides and negs) and they wanted some consistency of color throughout the presentation, then the second type of scan made more sense. This is a philosophical issue. Some photogs simply are after repeatable results, and do not want to either play with or emphasize the film characteristics, while others want the scan to represent the film image, and have chosen (or accidentally) gotten a result that works with the specific emulsion characteristics. I know that sometimes an image has been pushed beyond my expectations due to the film doing something I wasn't anticipating, making it into a winner, while other times, upon reflection, I can look at an image and say "Gee, had I just used __ film instead, this would have been so much nicer." More often than that, I say "Gee, had I just bracketed that a bit more, or had I just waited for the lighting to change a bit more, or had I just not used that lens, or that angle or that processor (who put a scratch in the middle of it!)..." you get the idea... Although I haven't gotten to the point where I'm saying "Gee, if I had just remembered to recharge the batteries, put film in the camera, to remove the lens cap, or worse still, to bring my camera equipment!" I'm sure that will eventually happen. I have had one "gee, if I had just remembered to rewind the film into the cassette BEFORE opening the back of the camera, that would have been a really good idea (or works "to that effect" ) ;-) Actually, in case this happens to someone else (I'm SURE I'm the only photog who ever did it...) if you do happen to open the back of the camera before rewinding the film into the cassette (yes, I know, Canons work the other way around) Quickly slam the camera back shut. Believe it or not. Film is relatively opaque before processing, and although you will lose your last frames and have some edge light fogging, most of the frames will likely survive... really! Art Art
Re: filmscanners: Ghosting on the Acer 2740S
The fact that it occurs on multi-pass scans and not otherwise, seems to suggest an alignment problem. The scanner might not be able to maintain perfect alignment with multiple passes. Since I do not know if these scanners were designed for multi-pass I can't comment whether this is considered a defect or not. However, the 2740S has to do at least two scans when it does dICE, because the IR scan is done separately from the visible light scan, so it should hold alignment at least for the two. I'm not sure the best way to determine if it is doing so, however, other than perhaps, placing both the IR and visible scan into photoshop and comparing channels. Art Lynn Allen wrote: > This sounds suspiciously like the "ghosting" that another member was getting on >astronomy pictures with a different scanner. The jury's still out on what is/was >causing it. > > I can't get my Acer 2027S to do this, although it will produce *other* curious >aberations. Of course, I don't have IR, either. > > Best regards--LRA > -- > > Original message: > >>> In a message dated 5/29/2001 12:22:18 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> writes: >>> >> >> Running my new 2740S with the latest VueScan, when I try multiple passes or >> the extra-long IR scan, I see a ghost image displaced slight upwards. I >> have no trouble on single scans. Is this something wrong with the Acer, >> the software, or am I doing something stupid? I haven't checked yet with >> Acer. >> >> Thanks. >> Matt Prastein >> . >> There's no such thing as free lunch. >> > > > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! > http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I >> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with >> a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there > > was > >> considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I >> also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to >> decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. > > > I did a scan of the same slide on my LS-30 and the SS4000 that you > loaned me (thanks again by the way), and didn't see any difference. > The same dust spots looked the same to me on both. I'll be the first > to admit that I didn't look at this too closely though, and this was quite > a while ago. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick I am beginning to think that variability within the hardware (and maybe even firmware) on these products mean any two products might be different enough to barely be able to make any broad statements. Can anyone in the industry comment on how rigorous the QC is on these units prior to leaving the factory? Art
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
tflash wrote: > >> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think >> it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. > > > The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 > rhododendron back to life! ;-p > > Todd Not to mention having started 3 forest fires due to global warming ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave King wrote: > > > Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed > against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is > the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much > difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W without > artifacting and time spent retouching? > > This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it > certainly isn't the scanner's "fault" if there is dust on film, there > is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered > depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can > give a "crunchy" quality to the tonal structure some would not want. > Some prefer the extra "punch" of this light. But all of these tonal > and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new > scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable > of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to > know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and B&W! > > There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) > > Dave To bring this into a slightly different realm... Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering and other human aspects of imprecise driving without creating any real danger. Then, on the other hand you had a choice of a car that had hardly any vibration in the steering and tended to handle somewhat better on the road as long as you used perfect driving habits, but if you over steered, for instance -(hey, your fault, right?) it skidded right off the road. Which would you prefer to drive? Being human, I'll take car number 1, thanks. Art
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma & Work flow suggestions
Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: > > This is about 24bits & 48 bits: > > Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the > scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. > I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following > will be good. > a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF > file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. > b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF > file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. > My approach to this is: Scan in 36 bit, and capture as 48 bit scan. Work in Photoshop in any aspect that works in 48 bit, and when all those aspects are adjusted, then convert to 24 bit. Working in 48 bit provides extra "breathing space" in your ability to get good adjustments, but it is not without other problems. Like, it requires a lot more memory, the processes are slowed down due to the extra number crunching necessary, and storage at that bit depth is painfully large. The main things I have found that benefit from the full bit depth are levels and curves, contrast and brightness and hue/color balance adjustment. For amateur use, all of this might be fairly moot, but you need to try both and see which you find acceptable. Art
filmscanners: Apologies
From what I can see, my illustrious ISP has managed to send multiple copies of several of my postings. I apologize from this problem. I think it has been fixed. I may fix it further in the next weeks or two, by changing ISP. Art
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
The original post asked about a comparison between the Olympus P-400 and the Epson 1280. Possibly, the subject line became truncated from the original, or maybe the original poster just tied out while writing the subject and didn't finish it ;-) Art John C. Jernigan wrote: > Will someone please tell me what this thread has to do with the Olympus > P-400 printer ??? >
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Which printer: was Olympus P-400
Marvin Demuth wrote: > At 06:37 PM 6/8/01, you wrote: > >> I give up! > > > Art, before completely giving up...using the "Occam's Razor" principle > of communication, if you did not have a printer today, and you were > buying one, knowing all that you know and feel, which printer would you > buy? > > Marvin Well, we're really off-topic now, and it hard to answer due to so many different needs people have. Size of image (width of printer)? Permanence of inks? Speed? Cost per print? Ease of color management? Reliability? Not an easy formula. Art
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Epson printers (Was: Olympus P-400 printer ???)
James Hill wrote: > The 2880 printing uses smaller steps by the stepper motor and actually > does provide smoother tones in the mid to highlight end. The > difference in 2880 and 1440 is really only visible under a loupe or if > you regularly sniff prints, as I have been known to do. At normal > viewing distances the difference is not visible. 2880 printing will > slow down the print speed considerably and probably uses a tiny bit > more ink. I would use it for my Best work, for show or sale, but not > for most of what I print on a daily basis. > > --James Hill > I too noticed very minimal differences. It probably allows for more forgiving prints if you have a slightly clogged nozzle, and helps to prevent banding more. Overall it just seemed like me as a way to slow down the printers, with minimal return. This is more specsmanship to be "bigger" than the competitors then about improved image. Since current stepper motors continue to get cheaper and finer, its a no cost option for Epson, IMHO. Art
Re: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
Marvin Demuth wrote: > I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those > produced via profiles and I am confused. > > In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the > raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what > is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor > as your starting point for your adjustments? Obviously, some software > has to used. > > I am trying to relate this to printing color negatives, which is within > my experience. With this process, for any degree of efficiency, you > have to start with color filtration commensurate with the film you are > using. > > Marvin Demuth I think Marvin makes an obvious but very significant point here. A raw scan of a negative, should be negative, not positive. Any manner of converting it into a positive means some type of profile has been actuated on it. Art
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Dave King wrote: > > Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it > seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end > results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has > recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of noise, and > perhaps that explains the difference between these scans. The LS-30 > scan appears sharper initially, but after working on both files I > would have to say first impressions are misleading, the "sharpness" > seems to be an artifact. No matter how I sharpen the LS-30 scan, I > can't get results that match the sharpened T-2500 scan for image > detail and clarity, and tonal smoothness and sharpness of grain. > First off, please excuse the many typos and grammatical errors in posts of the other day. I had no internet service for 3 days and then had to deal with a barrage of mail, and I was up until 4 AM answering them, as well, some personally quite stressful situations came up as well, just to keep the pot stirred. I'm a bit more rested now, and might even be able to type a coherent posting or two... I have a few ideas in regard to the issues of sharpness. Has Nikon added "unsharp masking to their scan? Before everyone jumps on me stating that the Nikon scan is pure and unadulterated and raw, let me qualify my statement. If Nikon found a way to do unsharp masking that was not in "firmware" code or their software interface/driver could it still me called sharpening? Isn't in fact true that the LED light source itself does a type of edge sharpening? Could the use of certain cut off, trim, or bias filters in the electronics actually "sharpen" an image? Is it possible the reason the Nikon can't be further sharpened without more artifacts be because it is being "optimized" in some other manner than through software? > > > I don't question the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus > of the scanner. The darkening (exaggeration) of the dust appears to > be a function of the infrared channel however, as Rob points out. I > have no problem with this either, as long as a dust removal algorithm > takes care of it (it does), and I can use the scanner with all > Kodachromes and B&W film and get results as good or better as with a > conventional design (I can't). David, would you be kind enough to post the same two images that you did previously, but this time using the unsharp masking you feel best "glorifies" the Agfa scan. What I'm wanting to see, is how the dust and dirt responds to that processing in software. Do we end up with very similar dust and dirt in both after sharpening? Also, I want to see the overall tonal ranges you refer to. I have the feeling that Nikon has > addressed these problems in the new designs, but I would like to know > how effectively before deciding on a next scanner purchase. Both the > Polaroid 120 and Nikonscan 8000 appear to be excellent with a slight > edge going to the Nikon perhaps. But is the Polaroid better for B&W > and Kodachrome work? The issue of Kodachrome and B&W with Nikon probably cannot be addressed easily. Unless Nikon has developed a way to lessen the "native sharpening" that normally occurs, or ASF has developed a new way to deal with the IR scan (or the IR scan methods have been altered), I don't know of any way to make B&W or certain Kodachrome dye sets to become IR transparent. Art > > Dave
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and SprintScan 120
WOW... I used to hear about reports of software causing hardware failures, and I always thought they were a bit like half of the virus warnings... urban myth... But I do suppose with so much of the electronics/mechanics now controlled through firmware or software, that a voltage change or repeated action could do some damage. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you have a SprintScan 120, I recommend you not use > VueScan 7.0.26 or 7.0.27 with it. I've gotten two reports > that VueScan kills the scanner, probably popping an internal > fuse. > > I'm urgently releasing a version of VueScan that will > disable all commands to the SprintScan 120 until I can > get Polaroid/Microtek to figure out what's wrong. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Raphael Bustin wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote: > > >> Rafe wrote: >> >>> Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't >>> bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite. >> >> I was under the impression that there was little if any >> difference between the current generation Superia 100 >> and Reala. When Fuji announced the extra colour layer, >> it seemed to point to the same technology. Can anyone >> confirm this? >> >> I haven't attempted resolution tests with Supra 100 to >> have some sort of meaningful comparison, but to my eye >> there was little difference in grain between Superia >> 100 and Supra 100 which made it hard to justify a >> premium price for the Kodak film. >> >> Rob > > > > First off, Supra is a C41 print film. Superia, > as I recall, as an E6 positive film. Fuji's > "equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps. > Enough people have corrected this that I don't need to add to that. Fuji is almost as bad as Minolta in naming their scanners, but not quite ;-) I'm sure some of the product name confusion (in the film market) is no accident. Having Superia and Supra sound so similar, and be similar product niches one Fuji, the later Kodak, is likely quite purposeful. Art
Re: filmscanners: Hazy bleed in hi contrast blacks on LS2000
I took a look at your scanned image (a nice image, BTW). The fact that the flare only becomes visible on boosting levels, might mean you are experiencing blooming, which is why I asked in my earlier posting if the the exposure seemed correct. However, there seems to be excessive blooming here, and I suspect this is due to contaminated surfaces on the optics (oil, smoke, etc.). I guess the question is, is this s new problem or did it manifest this when it was first purchased? Has it gotten worse over time? On the off chance my post of about a week ago got lost in the gears, I will repeat it here: 1st question: How many people smoke near where the scanner is located? Or cook fried foods? Or was the unit moved that day from a cold to warm place? The most common cause of halos in a scanner which seemed fine in the past, is an accumulation of residue on the lenses optics of ccd surface. Sometimes it could be water condensation from moving the scanner into a new environment or if you have a very steamy situation (hey, just what kind of images are these anyway ;-)) but if it is that, it will resolve in a few hours. Of course, if you don't normally scan high contrast images with a lot of black, you might not have noticed that this problem was developing over time (residue on the optics). Before panicking, however, it could be improper exposure. All CCD scanners suffer from some blooming, and this can be made worse by incorrect setting causing overexposure, which can occur with a lot of black background and the scanner using autoexposure. Assuming, however, that the part of the image that isn't black looks properly exposed, it likely isn't that. If the non-black portion is overexposed, you need to reset the white and black points manually before scanning, and rescan. Otherwise, it sounds like it may need a trip to your friendly Nikon service facility, which will likely charge you close to the resale value of the scanner to clean it. [;-)] Actually, I think they charge about $200 US. Like any optical products, (and most electronic, as well) having them in smoky environments is asking for functional problems down the road. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Films for scanning
Ebay is great. I use it semi-regularly, but I have to say it can be a real PITA for people outside of the US. Firstly, I'd guess at least 95% of the sellers will not sell to or ship out of the US. The ones that do, charge huge fees to service clients out of the US. Further, there appears to be an attitude that once they have your money, they can ship the item packaged in any manner they wish... Of my last 3 purchases, (in the last month) two refused to ship to Canada, and I had to have them ship to my US drop off address. Both shipments arrived damaged due to improper packaging (one went UPS one went USPS Priority Post). One item was shipped direct here, and arrived intact, but only because I insisted on double boxing. Customs problems and delays and duty costs abound. Saying that ebay is a viable method of making purchases from outside the US is a bit like telling Timothy McViegh that Canada doesn't have the death penalty. (yeah, I know you can't tell him anything anymore, and that's part of my point!) Art rafeb wrote: > At 01:37 PM 6/14/01 +1000, you wrote: > > >> Rafe wrote: >> >>> Look at the bright side. You can buy a used SprintScan >>> Plus on eBay right now for about 1/4 of what a new one >>> used to cost, about 2 years ago. >> >> If you happen to live in the USA. :) Still AFAIK the retail price of the >> SS4000 has come down from its original price. I'm not sure how the slide >> of the AUD has affected the local cost though. > > > > In terms of US $$, you have the same access to eBay > prices as everyone else, right? The exchange rate of > AUS $$ to US $$ is another matter. But the sharp > decline in used-scanner prices is for real. > > IMHO, eBay is a wonderful resource for photographers > on a budget. > > > rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner
You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce, although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12" or smaller. Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up the components of the image, without any true resolution loss, in the digital realm, since even 4000 dpi scanners do not capture all that is on a 35mm frame, you end up with softness and loss of detail if you go too large. If indeed you are going to keep to that 8" x 12" or smaller sizes, my experience is that I get "grainy" B&W images with even a 2400 dpi scanner when I enlarge to that size. In fact, with unsharp masking, which is necessary with any digital scan, you might find that with a 2700 dpi scanner, the grain of a 400 ISO film might even get exaggerated. If you are mainly printing black and white, you might want to look at Jon Cone's Piezography Inks, which allow for using four or six densities of black ink and special drivers to make very nice black and white prints. His web site is www.inkjetmall.com Art Nicholas Hartmann wrote: > Apologies to those who saw much the same posting in DigitalSilver. > Apologies also for a longish introduction: > > I have spent 25 years with B&W photography learning to make 11x14 > selenium-toned fiber prints that I like a lot. My kit consists of a 35mm > rangefinder camera with a few very good lenses, and Kodak TMax 400 film. > The reason for the fast film is that I take lots of pictures indoors in bad > light, and also that I actively dislike the "grainless" look of > medium-format or slow 35mm negatives. Because my lenses are good, much of > the fine image detail (when there is any) ends up sort of enmeshed with the > grain, and my 11x14 prints make that detail/grain nicely visible. > > So how do I retain this same "look" in a digital context? I've received > encouraging replies about the Canon and (especially) Nikon 4000 ppi > scanners, but I wanted also to check with the experts here. Let's assume I > have the latest version of Photoshop and a vigorous desire to learn to use > it; also a fast Macintosh with plenty of RAM; also an Epson 870 printer > that I will use until a mature B&W ink/paper situation gets shaken out. > > Is there any reason I should _not_ go for a Nikon 4000 ppi unit? Aside from > the software, I'm told, but I'm also told that VueScan works very nicely > for B&W. > > Thank you all in advance for your suggestions. > > -- Nick
Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner
I won't argue that CCD scanners do not typically capture the resolution I am referring to. In discussions with Phil Lippencott several years ago, he indicated to me that a properly captured 35mm Kodachrome slide (I'm not recalling if it was a 25 or 64 ISO film) could produce a close to 150 meg file without adding noise to make the file that large. I assume this was at 48 bit depth. He was using a drum scanner, and he told me that was about the number the thing plateaued out at. I am relatively convinced good films with good lenses can record over 4000 dpi (as captured by a CCD scanner). Part of this might well be that a 4000 dpi CCD scanner doesn't come close to capturing 4000 dpi, which I suspect is the case. Since I know that the rated 2400 dpi HP S-20 was "clocked in" at under 1000 dpi, I somehow doubt that the 4000 dpi models came close to that number either. Art Raphael Bustin wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >> You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce, >> although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12" or >> smaller. Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up >> the components of the image, without any true resolution loss, in the >> digital realm, since even 4000 dpi scanners do not capture all that is >> on a 35mm frame, you end up with softness and loss of detail if you go >> too large. > > > > While I know that this topic has been debated > many times, on many forums, I've come to the > conclusion that perhaps that very high estimate > of film resolution may be optimistic. > > I've never seen a drum scan of any of my slides > or negatives, but I've seen scans from a large > variety of CCD scanners, including the SprintScan > 4000 and now my 8000 ED -- both rated at 4000 dpi. > > In a nutshell -- I don't really see a significant > increase in sharpness going from 2700 dpi to 4000 > dpi. And this is with slow (ISO 100) negative > films like Reala, Supra, etc, using decent optics > and with the camera on a tripod. > > What I do see from these hi-res scanners is lower > noise, and better tonality. With the 8000, I'm > enjoying the extra dynamic range. But I'm not really > seeing a major increase in sharpness or apparent > resolution. > > Maybe one needs to go with fancy German lenses to > see that. Or maybe it's the case that the scanner's > internal optical system is the limiting factor. > > Whatever the reason -- my point is that this claim > of "greater than 4000 dpi" for the effective > resolution of film is rather optimistic. I'm curious > what it would take to actually observe and realize > such a high resolution. > > > > rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Paul Chefurka wrote: > > After all, 4000 ppi gives a resolution of 75 lp/mm or so, and it takes pretty >remarkable technique to actually get that kind of resolution onto film. Or is my crude first-approximation assessment incorrect, and we actually can't resolve detail in the scan at more than half that - say 40 lp/mm with reasonable contrast? Even that level is still sufficient for prints that appear "sharp" at normal viewing distances. > I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what they actually capture. Secondly, the nature of the CCD sensor is that of a soft edged scan due to a number of aspects of the nature of these chips, so you might be right that using current technology will not allow for much improvement. Art
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
rafeb wrote: > This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in > sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.) > Where I work they're refered to as CIS scanners > (Contact Image Sensor.) > I don't believe this is the same thing. As I understand it, a CIS is a different sensor than a CCD. It may well use a different light source, but I do not think the LED light source is a requirement. Art >
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Rafe wrote: > >> There is a difference here between the Nikon >> scanners (at least the latest generation) and >> most others -- specifically, the Nikons >> use a 3-line *monochrome* CCD sensor, and >> tri-color (RGB) LEDs > Austin Franklin wrote: > Huh? How do they get even illumination, muchless correct wavelength light, > from LEDs as the light source? That wouldn't be my first choice I don't > believe, for a light source, or for filtering the light! Yes, Austin, that is how the Nikons work. They have 4 sets of LEDs, R, G, B and IR. It is, in part, why 1) Nikons tend to exaggerate the dust and dirt, and 2) why they have some problems with DOF on the edges due to the low LUX intensity of the LEDs, leading to the need for a very wide open lens not allowing for enough DOF for the curvature of much film. Art
Re: filmscanners: GEM
Norman Quinn wrote: > > > > I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to a > Nikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to be > sharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention > GEM and > ROC. > > > > Sorry, but for those without this tool what is GEM and ROC? > > > As you probably know, the company Applied Science Fiction has at least three products for scanning use. These are the components of dICE cube. The one most people know, and the one which arrived on the scene first is dICE, which is a method of reducing the visible defects like dust, dirt, mold, scratches, fingerprints, etc. This process requires that there be an infra-red scan channel as part of the hardware, plus some firmware and software to work. GEM and ROC do not require hardware, but have to be "tuned" to the hardware they are used with. So, in theory, any scanner could have GEM and ROC regardless of the hardware, but it requires that Applied Science Fiction be hired to make the profiles, and that the scanner company pay a licensing fee to them. Without getting into the acronyms, which I don't exactly recall, GEM is a software process which helps to eliminate the appearance of grain, without significantly softening the image, and ROC (return of color - that one I remember) is a method of analyzing the image color channels, recognizing the type of film emulsion, and then, again via software, adjusting the R, G and B levels to add back the expected fading or loss of color of some types of films to make it look more like the film prior to any fading. Art
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Rob Geraghty wrote: > > I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount > lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken > with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than > photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the > autofocus is spot on, it doesn't seem to get close to the 50mm > in sharpness. On the other hand, the 50mm seems to have a bad > case of red colour fringing which is very noticeable when scanned. > In general, some of the older fixed focus lenses proved to have better glass, and if they are well multicoated they can be great. One of my best lenses is a Nikkor 135 2.8 tele. It is a Q series, which was a quality multicoated glass. About 10-15 years ago, the SLR manufacturers recognized that the vast majority of images shot on 35mm film never made it beyond 4 x 6 or at most 5 x 7" prints. As a result, they stopped trying to make lenses for the amateur market that resolved much more than what was necessary for those size prints. Yes, the pro-level lenses at thousand$ each still maintain the qualities of those older lenses, but at mucho mas dinero. But the general lenses available today with most 35mm cameras at several hundred of dollars each are slower lenses, compromise overall resolution when they are zooms, by keeping weight down and sometimes even using aspheric plastic molded lenses. Also, some of the cams and mechanics in the lenses are sloppier or wear due to the materials used. My best lenses, overall, are selected lenses I bought which were made in the 1960-70s. Of course, they can't be made autofocus, so I compromise when I need that feature by using AF lenses. Art
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Just hang around a while and you'll get plenty of this feedback. However, happiness is a difficult emotion for film scanner users. The desires and expectations, as the person becomes more educated, is difficult to maintain. There are quite a few scanner owners on this list who have scanners between $600 and $1500, and in fact, I'd guess the vast majority fit there, because the vast majority of consumer CCD films scanners are in that price range now. This forum is usually filled with people discussing the Acer 2710 and 2740, the Minolta Dual Dimage and II Elite, Canon FS 2710 and the new 4000 dpi model, the Nikon LS20, 2000, IV, the Polaroid SS4400... Everyone of these items costs less than $1500 US. In regard to the complaints that get voiced, the software and hardware end of this biz are still maturing, and like most 35mm photogs, they wish they could afford a "blad". But unlike "blads" the technology is getting better and cheaper all the time. Art Peter wrote: > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not > using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum > scanners or do not own scanners at all. > > I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 price > range. > > It is unfortunate.
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the >> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output >> can be >> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that >> seems >> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as >> long as >> great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would >> choose the >> one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts? >> (I have been to Wilhelm's site - >> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm - >> but he seems to limit his studies to digital.) >> Thank, >> John J. Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and print permanence. He has several books out of the subject. He has since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this information. As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output... When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing is far more stable that inkjet. However, if you use inks and paper types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years. Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a 17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue. He gives higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks. There are some ink and paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any accelerated testing processes. Art
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
I too was (and still am) fairly sure when I saw/see video versus film. I note even today that some TV shows use video while on the set, but will switch to film for outdoor shooting, and sometimes vice versa. The way I'd define this difference is in a number of ways. The obvious one is that film has a texture or grain, and the colors are usually less saturated, but more to the point film seems to have a wider range of color within any color breadth. For instance, when I look as video shot of a face, I do not see nearly the numbers of "steps" of both shadow and color that make up the tones of "flesh" whatever that is. With video, the pallet is much compressed. I also find the contrast is higher with video, almost like it went through some "unsharp masking". Video also seems to be a cooler range of colors, leaning to the bluer spectrum. Dan Honemann wrote: > > That same difference exists (again, for me) in images shot through some > lenses vs. others. I remember seeing a color print at a friend's house that > was simply amazing: the colors were so rich and deep and glossy that it > looked like the print was _liquid_--and this despite having been produced > back in the early 1970's (and obviously well before digital). My friend > told me his ex-wife shot it with an Olympus camera (didn't know what lens, > but likely a Zuiko). > Cibachrome prints of that era (especially the glossy ones), had a "liquid light" quality to them due to the thickness of the 'paper' emulsion and the polyester base which in the second generation used whipped air within the plastic base to create opacity to the paper, without using a dye in it. > I see some of this difference--though a bit more subtly--between color > slides shot through Leica glass vs. Nikkors. And the same difference seems > to me to show up between the Leafscan 45 and Nikon 4000 images at > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > Some years back I did a double blind test of some Leica and Nikkor lenses, looking at color rendition, sharpness, etc, shooting the exact same images on both at the same time on the same film. I also invited several photographers and we looked at the slides projected with Navitar Gold lenses. The conclusions were pretty much split 50-50% depending upon the lenses. With the 28mm lenses the Leica shots looked great, the "normal lenses" had about 50-50% favor to each company, and the Nikon 135mm won hands down. Art
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
rafeb wrote: > At 11:50 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Dan wrote: > >>> I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice. >> >> I once met a woman about my age (40) who has shot with only one camera since >> high school (and she's been a professional photographer since then): an old >> Wista 8x10 with a single lens. That's it. She only shoots b&w film and >> always uses palladium printing. >> >> And her work is absolutely stunning. You can see some of it from here: >> >> http://www.mastersofphotography.com/Directory/rdeluise/rdeluise_bio.html > > > > Which all goes to show -- it's not the tools, it's the technique. > Well, I think this might just prove the opposite. I think half of what made Ansel Adam's work so "agreeable" is that he was working with a large format neg. Yes, his subject matter is "nice" and he certainly learned how to work with natural lighting to get the "most" out of the film, but the truth is his compositions are no better than hundreds of other photographers before, and since him. I give him kudos for "schlepping" around a monster camera and tripod to those then out of reach locations, but that just made him a dedicated photographer and a pack mule (Oh-oh, I know I'm gonna pay for that one ;-)) What makes using an 8x10" neg gutsy is that it is equivalent to a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film in cost and sq. inches, and again, when considering weight, each 8x10 film holder probably weights the equivalent of a good dozen or more 36 exposure 35mm rolls. You have to feel pretty committed when you hit that shutter lever. You also need a huge enlarger, to work from them, and also you probably do your own touch up since that size neg allows for it. I'm not belittling the images of any large format photographer... I love the look, especially in B&W... and the dedication, but in part it is indeed the TOOL that makes the image, as much as, if not moreso than the technique. > Or as Maria Muldaur put it, way back when -- it's not the meat, > it's the motion. > > It always comes down to body parts, doesn't it ;-) Art PS: people who really have to be admired are 4x5" format underwater photographers. The usually get 3-4 shots max per dive before they have to surface, dry everything off and reload, or change cameras.
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Obviously, how evenly illuminated a field of light sources appears to be has to do with at what distance (or magnification) they are being viewed at, and through what media the light is being shown through. There are all sorts of methods of mixing and baffling and diffusing that can blend illumination. One could say a color CRT isn't evenly illuminated either, as it is bunch of lines or spots of varying phosphors and a shadow mask through which the electron guns activate the phosphors. Yet, from a few feet away a good quality and properly aligned, converged and degaussed color CRT can look like a very pure field of white (or whatever other color) light. So, without knowing how large the LEDs are, how bright they are, how close together they can be placed, how even their output, how closely they will be viewed and ultimately what their light is "processed through" I have no reason to believe they cannot produce even illumination for a specific application. Has anyone actually seen the illumination system used in a Nikon scanner? How large are the LED "elements"? Are all four "colors" integrated into one LED element (R,G,B, IR), or are they individual? Are they diffused via some material or light chamber? Art Austin Franklin wrote: >>> What I don't yet understand is how the illuminant >>> is evenly distributed over the film width, >> >> Lots of LEDS, spaced to give even illumination. > > > But that's the point...you CAN'T space them to give even illumination. Just > a single LED is unevenly illuminated in and of it self! It's typically a > mounded plastic piece, which is really not very consistent.
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
If I'm not mistaken, all A.C powered fluorescent bulbs "flicker" at 60/50 cycle (in those places that use 60 or 50 cycle AC, that is). In fact so do incandescent bulbs, for that matter, but in both cases, aspects of the design reduce the visibility of this. I think television screens also do so at some frequency..., and we know that computer monitors do, and the higher the frequency the less obvious, at least on a conscious level. In the case of fluorescents (and televisions and CRTs), the phosphors have a long enough lag activation period to "bridge" this rather short fraction of a second. In the case of incandescents, the filament remains hot enough to bridge that difference in electrical flow. I plead total ignorance in how DC powered bulbs fare, however. Regarding the Leaf scanners. I knew they were off my want list when I saw the bulb for one being sold on ebay, as a separate auction item ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: >> The *problem* I see with cold-cathode and fluorescents is that >> they can flicker. I'm not exactly sure why this happens. > > > Typically it is caused by the observer being on some psycho conducive > substance ;-) > > The Leaf uses a "tri-band phosphor fluorescent lamp", which I would guess > doesn't have the fluctuation problem you mention, or if it does, it does not > seem to matter.
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Tony Sleep wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:59:33 -0400 Austin Franklin > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >> It's entirely different. Incandescent lamps used for such are diffuse >> and >> are not near as focused as LEDs. Using commercially available standard >> parts, you need individual LEDs because you need three colors. > > > Bah, small minded Luddites abound ;-) Of course the real advance will be > to use high-intensity TFT panels as a scanner lightsource, strobing RGB > sequentially and self-masking in a closed-loop with the CCD. A > calibration prescan will allow user and/or automated control of curves, to > attenuate or boost TFT pixel brightness on an individual basis, thereby > ensuring maximum shadow detail (all kept above the noise floor), > unblowable highlights, balancing of bright areas like skies at scan time, > and an OD range of about 12.6 Gee, 'big' minds seem to think alike. I was actually looking into this myself. I think the problem is that the TFT display doesn't provide the light source, just the color, so you are still having to provide a good constant color light source (cold cathode, I suppose). Also, those LCD panels do have problems with color accuracy (which is why no one does color managed work with a LCD panel) and also there are still failed "pixels", something one would like to avoid in mission critical applications like scanning. By the way, some of the index prints that are made by photo labs which come with APS rolls, for instance, use a negative digital mask made from a color LCD screen contact printed onto the photo paper. Resolution is not great, but its an ingenious idea, IMHO. > > A shame TFT doesn't have room for IR, but I'm sure that can be fixed. I suspect this could be accomplished through using two different light sources. > > Interested scanner manufacturers should forward large bundles of used $50 > notes to me ASAP Now, don't tell me you've given up on Euros already! Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: > > > > i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something > to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to > use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market > was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) > . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that > digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use > neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are > good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just > stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can > get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide > from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but > maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . > regards > Stuart > Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days... I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of "film" qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? Art
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
Herm wrote: > I use a lot of this film pushed to +3 stops..according to Kodak the resulting > ASA numbers are 200 (normal), 320, 640, 1000. Even at 1000 it still has very low > grain (a bit less than a 400ASA print film), of course you have to be careful > since it will not tolerate improper exposures at ASA1000. Pushed +3 its a good > film for available light photography. Extremely fine grain when used at 200 or > 320. OK, now I'm confused. I thought taking ASA 200 film up three 'stops' meant 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 ISO/ASA. As I understood "stops" it was an additional f-stop. I thought each "full" f-stop more open increased the amount of light reaching the film by a factor of 2, which was also equivalent to one shutter speed position lower. So, if I had a 200 ASA film without any pushing, and the perfect expose was 1/125th sec at f/5.6, that I could also take this same image at either 1/250th sec at f5.6 or at 1/125th sec at f4.0 if I had the film push processed for one additional stop, and so on. Instead, it appears, Kodak is claiming for some reason (reciprocity failure??) 3 processing pushes are not equivalent to full "stops" and therefore one push is at 340 ASA, two pushes are at 640 ASA and three pushes are 1000 ASA, for a maximum of 2.5 stops for the three processing pushes. Can someone enlighten me on this? > > Kodak also makes a consumer version of this film, called Elite Chrome 200. It > also performs the same but I believe it reacts a bit different to +3 stop push > (I'm not sure, perhaps a bit faster than ASA1000, slight color shift to green), > Kodak claims its the same film but not stored or aged for professional use. I > use them interchangeably. Since you use a lot of the pro version of this film, I have another question. My wife has tried the Elite Chrome 200 on several occasions. Each time she had it pushed (one push, shooting at 400 ASA) the results were variations of red shadows ranging from mildly pink, to downright ridiculous red Dmax. Have you ever experienced this? Could it be the film was damaged by heat or just a bad emulsion batch? And, BTW, it does seem that shooting this film at ASA400 with one push is not a good idea, as her images were all underexposed by close to one stop in any shadow areas (almost like it wasn't pushed at all)... Anyone with comments on the use of Elite Chrome 200 with pushing would be most appreciated (please use private e-mail if this is too off-topic). Art
Re: filmscanners: line on Polaroid SS4000
Before you give up on your scanner, or have to to cut and paste on the bad line every time, you might want to try to place your scanner on a different plane (try New York to LA ;-)) NO, seriously, try placing the scanner on its side and give it some gentle taps on all sides to dislodge any dust that might have fallen on the CCD. Then put it back upright and try again. It might just be a speck of dirt that needs to be "vacated". If that gets you nowhere, then likely it is a defective CCD element, or a problem with the calibration process. While on the subject of the "other cause" (a bad CCD element), I have a bone to pick with manufacturers about this. I can think of no reason (other than a manufacturing defect) that can cause a failure of a CCD element, at least none that can be the caused by a user, other than perhaps excessive use. I understand that the CCD can't be warranted forever, but it should provide some reasonable use without failing. It is a known manufacturing problem that CCDs can have one or more weak or defective elements which fail prematurely. If the person uses the scanner regularly, they will likely be covered under warranty, as it will fail prior to the one year anniversary, but if, as in the case of John, the scanner gets intermittent usage, well, then they get saddled with a huge repair bill. This seems completely unfair to me. A CCD sensor unit should be able to be reliable for several years, or more to the point, a certain number of scans. I'm gonna bet that most scanners have something in the firmware that keeps track of the number of scans run through the unit, so the manufacturer could tell (and so could the user), and since the CCD plus labor is a major expense for replacement, I think a special CCD sensor warranty of say 3 years or 5000 scans (or whatever) would not be unreasonable. Auto manufacturers do the same thing. So which is the first manufacturer to step up to the plate? (BTW: Nikon should offer the same deal on their LED array!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > Earlier, I had posted a "help" message regarding a line that I was > getting on my scans from the 4000. If I scan a horizontal slide, there > is a light colored line about one third of the way down from the top, it > goes all the way from left to right. I called Polaroid and since the > scanner is out of warranty, it would cost $125 for an estimate and the > lady on the phone said it might end up costing a total of $500-600 to > fix. I only use the machine perhaps 3 times a week, so it is not > something that is critical to my work. Thanks to Paul Chefurka and his > suggestion to see if the line was one pixel wide, I found my own > solution. I just don't feel at this point that I want to spend almost > half the price of the scanner to have it repaired. In Photoshop, I > enlarged the image on the monitor to about 1000 per cent. At this > magnification, you are able to see the individual "lines" of pixels. I > selected the line above the light scan line I got and then copied it, > and then with the move tool, moved it over the line caused by the > scanner, and it works perfect, you can not tell it is there. It took all > of maybe 2 minutes to do. I guess this could also be a good fix for a > scratch that went from side to side. > > John Hough
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
Stan McQueen wrote: > > I thought the same, but I recently read a column in one of the photo > mags (forget which one) in which it was stated that Kodak does consider > a one-stop push of Ektachrome 200 to be ASA 320. The author said that if > you shoot at 400, you should tell the lab that rather than telling them > to push it one stop. > > Stan > === > Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com OK, it now appears Kodak is rewriting terms, we're no longer taking "stops" we are talking "K"-pushes ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
Johnny Deadman wrote: > on 6/21/01 7:37 PM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>> I use a lot of this film pushed to +3 stops..according to Kodak the resulting >>> ASA numbers are 200 (normal), 320, 640, 1000. Even at 1000 it still has very >>> low >>> grain (a bit less than a 400ASA print film), of course you have to be careful >>> since it will not tolerate improper exposures at ASA1000. Pushed +3 its a >>> good >>> film for available light photography. Extremely fine grain when used at 200 >>> or >>> 320. >> >> OK, now I'm confused. I thought taking ASA 200 film up three 'stops' >> meant 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 ISO/ASA. As I understood "stops" it was >> an additional f-stop. I thought each "full" f-stop more open increased >> the amount of light reaching the film by a factor of 2, which was also >> equivalent to one shutter speed position lower. So, if I had a 200 ASA >> film without any pushing, and the perfect expose was 1/125th sec at >> f/5.6, that I could also take this same image at either 1/250th sec at >> f5.6 or at 1/125th sec at f4.0 if I had the film push processed for one >> additional stop, and so on. > > > you were going pretty good until the last bit. If you pushed the film a > stop, you could used 1/250 @ f/5.6 or 1/125 @ f/8 NOT f/4. Yeah, what he said ;-) Thanks for the correction, Not firing on all neurons... Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days... > > > No :-)) > My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, "convenient", as the "instant" films used to be. > >> I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio >> work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the >> web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very >> meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so >> most of the translation removes the majority of "film" qualities >> anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 >> megapixel with good lens and exposure option). >> >> Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at >> 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall?
Ian Jackson wrote: > Anyone know why the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 went through a recall recently? > > Ian Maybe because Vuescan blew too many of them up? THIS IS A JOKE == At least Polaroid does recalls, unlike some companies I can think of. This is NOT a joke Art
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Raphael Bustin wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Julian Robinson wrote: > > >> Hey let's keep this clean and vaguely accurate even if it is OT... > > > > Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000 > hour MTBF figure. > Oh, what's a few orders of magnitude amongst engineers, anyway? ;-) > > I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical > shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the > numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix > the potholes in your driveway, Austin, > or get new shock absorbers for that beast. > What type of display is used in things like VCR, tape deck and microwave displays? It looks like it is almost a type of gas plasma/fluorescent type of thing. Many of my older devices with those type of displays now have considerable and uneven loss of brightness. I sort of recall LEDs having pretty poor reliability many moons ago, when they were mainly seen in NASA spacecraft, those large wrist watches and Texas Instrument calculators, but I think 30 years has had it's effect upon the design, eh? Art
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Austin Franklin wrote: >>> My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would >> >> know that LEDs >> >>> do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning >> >> out, doesn't >> >>> mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000 >>> hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours. Aside from >>> having written and reviewed quite a few MTBF and MTTR studies on designs >>> that included LEDS, I recently replaced 4 of the 6 LEDs in my >>> radio/CD/Cassette in my 1989 Range Rover, so I DO know they do burn out. >> >> >> 1000 hours MTBF can't be right, Austin. Didn't the word humility crop up in a message I sent you about a year ago? ;-) Also, I'm guessing LEDs made in 1987-88, when your Range Rover was likely put together, were not the same ones used today, about 12 years later > I'm only going by what the catalog says, and I didn't write it. Stanley LED > catalog, p. 24: > I never met a Stanley parts catalogue I couldn't trust ;-) ;-) > "Operating Life JIS C 7035 Ta=25C, IF=Max, t=1000Hrs." Austin, this is why it sometimes is helpful to engage your obviously very capable brain rather than relying totally on written "fact". I'm sure given a little thought, you'd have recognized the silliness of the 1000 hr number, considering how often we replace incandescent household light bulbs. (then again, lately companies like GE seem to be happy with 100 hr bulbs or ones that just fail on power up, by that's another matter). Can you imagine what problems in equipment failures would exist if LEDs lasted on average 1000 hr only? I think Rafe gave some good examples of the huge number of devices we use which rely upon LEDs to sense locations, positioning, actuation or switching (how about most computer mouses, for instance). Tell you one thing, I'm not buying any Stanley LEDs! (they must have gotten a great buy on these!) ;-) > > It very clearly says "1000". The Lumex web site says their Life Test is > 10,000 hours, which sounds a lot better. > I also expect, like incandescents and other illumination sources, LEDs can be built to different specs and be run under different electronic designs. For instance, I know that with the halogen bulbs used in projectors, a "25 hr" bulb will last only 5-11 hours run at 125-130 volts, will last 11-19 hours run at 120-125 volts, they last upwards of 19-31 hrs run at 115-120 and if you use a dimmer to bring them down to about 105-110, they will last well over 50 hours, or nearly one order of magnitude from running at 125-130 volts. > Your scanner should have a cited MTBF and MTTR, what are they? Yes, that would be interesting, if they consider the light source separately, and not the whole unit. Art
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
I want to thank the people who provided extra info regarding Elite Chrome 200/ E200 film. I think it is time for me to write Kodak and get some explanations from the "K-horse's mouth". Art Herm wrote: > just ask the lab to extend developing time (in the first developer), here are > the numbers from the Kodak web site: > > http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e28/e28.shtml > > Starting-Point Exposures for Push Processing EKTACHROME Film E200 > Exposure Index Specify This Push Condition to the Lab Typical Time in First > Developer: > > EI 320 Push 1 8 minutes > EI 640 Push 2 11 minutes > EI 1000 Push 3 14 minutes > > I use the same numbers with Elite Chrome 200, even if Kodak does not specify > that this film can be pushed. I would suspect you will not find a suitable lab > in a small town. >
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find the number one problem with digital is the poor archival nature of storage, so I am in total agreement with Karl. The problem of change of format, no easy way to identify what is on the disk/tape without a specialized (and maybe unavailable) reader, loss of magnetic or optical data reliability in minimal time often causing a few bytes worth of loss to render the total file or disk unreadable, etc, all lead to the same problem. Film is much more reliable. All you need is light to see it, a scratch is repairable without the full loss of data, etc. As I've said many times: show me a medium 1.5" x 1" x nearly zero, that stores a readily accessible, 200 megs of info, which is also almost fully archival with minimal care, and costs under 25 cents, and I'll be ready to go fully digital. Further, tell me of a more upgradable machine than a silver film based 35mm camera, which only needs a new roll of film (under $10) to take advantage of the latest in photographic image taking... Sure, I love digital, but no one should be fooled into thinking that right now it is a "better" media in the above mentioned areas of cost or reliability of storage, archiving and expense in upgrading. Art Karl Schulmeisters wrote: > Well this has another 'permanence problem'. I still have in my 'archive' of > storage media > 2 9track 6250 tapes (from less than 20 yrs ago and now effectively > unreadable) > 6 8" Floppy disks (now unreadable) > 3 IoMega removable disks (from 10 years ago - now unreadable) > lots of 3.5" floppies, which are rapidly becoming unreadable on many > machines > > OTOH, I have a cabinet full of negatives from 30+ years ago - and negatives > from my grandmother's time, as well as positives, that survived Displaced > Person's Camps and all sorts of horrible situations. How many CDRoms do you > think would have made it through Forced Labor camps of WWII? > > ALL of which are 'readable' (ie printable) > > Data CD-ROMs, exposed to sunlight, have a life expectancy of about 15years > before bit-rot becomes uncorrectable (not AS big a deal in image and music > CDs where it appears as noise) > > As for Digital having the same quality as film - maybe if you are purely > looking at 35mm - but I would disagree here as well. Note also, that as > wonderful as an Epson 1280 is, It can't do 16x20 or larger. I can with my > chemical enlarger. Pretty trivially. > > That said, I'm not an anti-digital luddite. But unless you are going to > spring for a Canon D-30 or a Nikon D-1, even point-and-shoot film cameras > give you better image quality, and I will take the crispness of a > photographic print over a glossy inkjet anyday. > >
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( > E. E. > Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. > The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write > the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD > what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing > (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after > few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be > lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make > many > backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless > they > can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write > a CD > that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. Every time the density of storage media increases, this issue is (and probably needs to be) revisited. I figure, with each doubling of storage density, there should be a doubling of reliability and permanence, since we are at least doubling our confidence in the product with the amount of material going onto it. I do believe optical is better than magnetic, and if kept relatively safe of optical damage (from UV, intense lighting, etc), if the media is quality, it might even last a few dozen years... However, coming up with multiple formats for the same media almost always creates all sorts of confusion. Art
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
Sorry Lynn, you are several months (which in this biz is centuries) out of date. Epson (the printer people) with Cambridge Institute (I believe this is in Boston) have developed a method for using inkjet technology to spray some type of transistors onto substrates, to make a color panel which uses room reflective light source to create bright colored images that can be changed at will electronically. It only requires an edge connector to be activated. This stuff will be so cheap to produce within a few years, and can be sprayed on so many different substrates, that you'll being seeing video "Weakies" commercials on the cereal box in the grocery store, very likely in YOUR lifetime (as long as you don't do anything too strenuous ;-)) And, BTW, as mentionedm, the more expensive version of this, using LCD technology is already available, but is only for people like Bill Gates, who has just such a thing. Smaller versions are available for the little people (;-0) in places like "Sharper Image" catalogues. Art Lynn Allen wrote: > Hi, Steve-- > > Yes, this is sort of what I was talking about, on a lesser scale--I had > the idea back in the 80's, Ray Bradbury had it back in the 40's. :-) > It's a little bit "Star Trek," but the concept is valid. Thanks for > passing on the web site. As of now, the technology is too expensive and > too limited--it still needs a breakthrough or several. > > I knew the mother of an engineer/physicist whose field was liquid > crystal research. He hit so many brick walls (in the 60's & 70's) that > he had a nervous breakdown and eventually committed suicide. True fact. > > Eventually, Bradbury's concept will come about, and you'll actually be > able to put movies of the African Veldt on the wall of your kids' room. > Not in my lifetime, though, and the kids will *probably* not be able to > turn the lions loose on their parents. ;-) > > Best regards--Lynn Allen > > >
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Just two days ago, I was at a local retailer who showed me the new HP scanner/copier (which is basically an inkjet printer and a scanner on top). It was only $399 CAN, and they have reduced the footprint to that of a small inkjet printer. Pretty amazing. The part that relates to this discussion, is that they were just setting it up, and that included a calibration process for the color and black ink heads. It is now an automatic function. The printer printed a set of varying matrixes and lines in both black and yellow. The print head also had a very bright blue LED which went on, and I expect some type of sensor, which read the resultant printout. When the blue LED was on, the yellow printing probably became gray, and the system probably tried to find the placement of the yellow and black lines which made for the highest contrast (which would be when the yellow and black lines printed on top of each other exactly). I assume the unit than used this information to either physically adjust the head positioning, or to change the printing pattern to use certain nozzles and delays between the black and color cart, so that the ink would be printed onto the paper in registration. It was a pretty neat idea, all made affordable by a blue LED. Art Clark Guy wrote: > > On a historical note, back in the late '80s and early '90s, blue LEDs were > very dim. They were made from Silicon Carbide, and put out less than > 100mCandela while good red or green LEDs put out in excess of 1000mC. I > used a particular HP red diode that put out 3-4 Candela! from a T-1 package > (small size). In the mid '90s I saw an example of a (then) US$50 blue > ultribright diode. It put out at least one full Candela of power, but it > was too expensive for my medical diagnostic device application. This > weekend, I went to the drugstore to buy some film , and found a > blueish-white LED flashlight for sale for ~$8.00 It is blinding in it's > intensity!!! Clearly the state of the art is moving forward at quite a > rapid pace! > > Hope this helps!! > > Guy Clark > > > --
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: > Hersch Nitikman wrote: > >> For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my >> personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from >> the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my >> 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of >> Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has >> done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much >> faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable >> ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' >> unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. >> Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years >> still seems like the best means now available. >> Hersch > > > This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. B&W > film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people > lump "film" all into one group when obviously there are differences > between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate > colors... > > Isaac
Re: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Dear Jerry, I just took a look at your attachment in Photoshop. Of course, it is heavily artifacted due to the downsampling and Jpegging. The first thing I always do when I look at defects is to go into channels and look at each channel as a separate entity. In this case, all the problems I am seeing are in the blue channel, but of course, since the "stain" is yellowish, that would be expected. I can see considerable streaking in that area, which might either be the jpegging or it might indicate some dirt or dust or calibration problem (or defects) with the blue CCD. It could also, however, be a defective light source emphasizing the yellow end of the spectrum, which, of course, would be picked up by the blue channel. The first thing to do is to try to rule out that this defect is actually on the film itself. I would try two things to try to isolate this. 1) put the neg into the scanner the other direction, or flipped, so the left and right are reversed. Since the worst of the yellowing/darkening is on the right side currently, see if it become the left side of the scan when you reverse the image. If so, the problem is likely the film itself. 2) If you can sacrifice a frame of this film that is very overexposed, try mounting it in a slide mount at 90 degrees and see if the problem is still in the same place (in relation to the scanner) or not. It might be that the processing developed the streaks on the edges of the film and they are amplified by the overexposure. Yet another possibility is that the scanner is running into it's limits in dealing with the Dmax at those edges. Between a small amount of light falloff and possibly slightly darker film at the edges (film tends to get developed along the edges due to the sprockets carrying a bit of extra chemistry with them between chemical vats) If the film was drum developed, with a film reel, that would even make it worse, as chemistry gets trapped in the reel), anyway, you might be hitting a threshold of the scanner CCD or electronics which is being amplified by these factors. Lastly, typically, repairs made during a warranty period where the repair period caused the warranty to run out, usually carry some type of further warranty from 90 days to 1 year. Further, if a repair is not effective, the warranty is considered extended until the repair is completed plus an additional time for that repair (like 90 days). Of course, every country has its own legislation, and every company has its own policies concerning these matters, but most enlightened governments, like Holland, should have laws protecting consumers in these matters. Art Oostrom, Jerry wrote: > Hi Alan, > > I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the same > problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative, which gave a > perfect fine grained print, but scanning with the Scanwit 2720S is useless > for such overexposed negatives as the negative is too dark for the (my) > scanwit to scan. I don't know if it is the lightbulb which gives uneven > illumination or dust on the lenses, CCD failures etc, but the outer sides of > the CCD give too much noise on a dark negative / positive and in case of a > negative this results in yellowish banding. > > Here I show you the scan, downsampled a lot of times. I did use either > Vuescan or Miraphoto white balance (which clearly failed, but I know I > checked both programs for their results: you get this strange color cast). I > didn't try to remove the color cast, but you can still clearly see the > yellow / brownish banding along the long edges. The one on the side of the > frame where the left door is located is very prominent, it corresponds to > the floor side of the film holder as you insert it in the scanner. > > I sent AcerCM some of my new scans (or links to the scans) made with the > 'repaired' unit and they went very silent :-( > I don't know if that has to do with vacations or whatever. I think they know > they didn't solve the problem during the repairs and they can't solve it > without changing a lightbulb or CCD, which is probably too expensive. > Unfortunately, my warranty expired during the repair period, so there is not > much left to do. > I tried some things on my side as well to see if the problem has to do with > electronic interference (somebody on this list suggested that some time > ago), but I don't know enough about electronics to do some educated tests: I > wrapped the SCSI cable in aluminium foil, but it was to no avail. I'll try > one last thing this week: hook up the scanner on another group than the PC. > This is my last hope. I've seen the monitor flickering, so it could be that > the current or voltage is not stable enough in the group of the PC. > > almost scanwitless, >
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
That's what I suspect, or that it uses some type of averaging process of several rows overlapped in the single row mode. Further, I suspect the middle CCD strip is the most insulated from anomalies (electronic, and spill over). Art Rob Geraghty wrote: > Rafe wrote: > >> Not entirely sure what this does -- the Nikon manual says >> it uses one CCD row rather than three -- but it did >> completely eliminate the banding. The price is that the >> scan takes three times as long (!!!) > > > Maybe the banding is caused by differences in the response > of the three CCD rows? > > Rob > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Larry Berman wrote: > There is a double page picture, > shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I > purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb. ^^ > > Larry > OH, I see, its one of those cameras that make the whole world look like a suburb... I prefer cameras that don't try to make everything look middle class myself! ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
This is sounding a lot like Epson's micro printing mode to eliminate banding during printing. It seems it might be using the middle CCD row, which is probably most stable of the three. As you said, it would slow things down quick a bit. The dense scan banding brings back memories of my HP PhotoSmart... Seems CCD scanners still are not quite "there"... maybe a few more generations? Art rafeb wrote: > As luck/fate would have it, I'm now seeing very similar > banding to what Lawrence Smith reported and demonstrated > with his sample slide a day or two back. In a nutshell: > vertical banding on a landscape-format negative (horizontal > banding on a lansdcape-format slide) that looks a bit like > venetian blinds. Very regular and periodic. > > I've seen it now on both slides and negatives. The > problem may be related to overly-dense transparencies, > but then again maybe not. > > I'm not sure if this banding has always been here on > this scanner, or if it just appeared. In any case it's > pretty awful, at least on some images. > > I just got off the phone with Nikon Tech support > (800-NIKON-UX) and they did offer the following solution, > which did eliminate the banding: In the Tools Pallette, > under "Scanner Extras", item "CCD Scan Mode" -- check the > "Super Fine Scan" box. > >
Re: filmscanners: Leaf?
Raphael Bustin wrote: > > Jeez, I haven't checked the warranty -- just > blithely assumed it was 1 year. > > I avoid "extended warranties" as a matter of > principle, be it washing machines or audio > gear. > > I find that repair costs for any given item > are often scaled to the original purchase cost. > Eg., it will cost more to get a BMW or Mercedes > fixed than to get a Ford fixed. > > > rafe b. I tend to agree, but one nice feature of my Mastercard is a free double warranty on anything I buy on the card, up to an extra one year. I pay nothing for this feature on the card. I've yet to have to use it, but it feels a bit more secure to have a 180 day warranty widened to a year, a one year become two, and a 3 year become 4 year, all for free. Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Yes, it is CT18 and CT20?, and they have all but disappeared. And, one would "suspect" the processing was done properly, because the rolls were sent to Agfa Germany. However, the rolls were so severely scratched during processing, that I have a difficult time believing they actually were processed in Germany. There were several batches sent too, so it wasn't just one bad day. Regarding the cellulose based films, apparently the Bettman collection Bill Gates bought is completely disintegrating, so they have given up on trying to scan most of them, since they claim it would take 25 years or more to accomplish and by then they will all be dust, ao they have moved the whole collection out of New York City and into some limestone caves somewhere, where maybe they will just "rest in peace" ? They also made mention i the article of a strong smell of acetic acid. AT first I thought they moved them just to keep the disaster out of the public eye, but maybe the coolness and alkaline nature of the limestone will slow down the process. Of course, they could have just invested in some more employees and equipment and scanned the work a little faster... Art Tony Sleep wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:05:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > >> other than Afga slides which used some >> weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me > > > Coo. I have a very few slides I shot on Agfa CT18 when I was a kid, > c.1964. Despite negligent storage, the colours are still saturated and > neutral. > > I found a colour neg of my dad's on unmasked Agfacolor col.neg, from 1958, > and had it printed recently. Excellent, especially skin tones. Grass was a > little yellowish, but that's all. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner > info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors (that disappear with Mika
Jerry, I think that the majority of any perceived acrimony that occurred in these recent exchanges of ideas, is due to linguistic differences, as it can be more difficult to both write in, and fully comprehend in a second language. I think there is a very minor debate here, and not much else. You might be over-reacting to the interchange taking place. Art Oostrom, Jerry wrote: > Mikael, > > even if I 'rely' on your writing, it still wasn't that obvious what the real > issue was before your last mail. Your behaviour in it is 'uncontrolled' as > if you lost your self-control. As a result it contains personal accusations > and assumptions of which I cannot believe you have any good proof and even > if you did, why write it to the list? It reads like a cartoon now and you > become i.m.o. a caricature in it (like many supposedly adults I know btw. of > which some are on this list too.). > > So loosen up! >
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Most scratches I have on B&W negs are not through the silver image, but either on the non-emulsion surface, or on the emulsion side, but not through it, so that light shows through. That's one nasty type of scratch that literally goes through the silver image. Obviously one problem with using these "clear" areas as a mask is that all clear areas would become part of the mask, not only the scratches. Art Lynn Allen wrote: > Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it > won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg. OTOH, it seems like it > would create a perfect "mask" if the neg were scratched, because the IR > *would* pass through the scratches. It could then be offset slightly to > pick up the values to one side of the scratches, or from a blurred copy > of the picture. > > I don't know if anybody's tried this, but it seems doable, at least as a > theory. If IR reacts the same way to a fine line of detail as it would > to a scratch, however, it would probably be more trouble than it's > worth. :-) > > Best regards--LRA
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
laurie wrote: > > > The problem was also recognized with respect to video tapes. The U.S. > National archives were given video tapes of the various space adventures > in the 1960s and 70s by NASA, which were recorded on acetate bases; when > the Archives opened the sealed cannisters with the video tapes, they > found clear accetate wound around the cores with metalic iron dust on > the from the tapes on the bottom of the cannister. They were totally > and permanently lost. > As I have been hear to say on occasion: Technology is only as good as what binds it together ;-) Or put another way, I've met quite a few adhesives that I've learn to hate over time. Art
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Well, two comments, 1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage 2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in apartments in cities in temperate zones during the summer. Keep it cool, keep the humidity below 50% and constant, and your film will think it was at the spa, in fact, it might come out looking and feeling younger than when it went in ;-) Art Robert Kehl wrote: > Yeah Tony, > > > > that was news to me, too. > > > > I was under the misassumption that film was the best archival medium > around. Perhaps CD's or other backed up digital storage is best, if for > no other reason than you can copy it forward without any loss > before your digital media's (CD, tape, etc) archival life expires. >
Re: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner
Shough, Dean wrote: > See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html > > Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. I was just about to write a bit about this new scanner. I'm afraid you got a little enthusiastic about those zeros ;-) The new Minolta Multi Pro Scanner (35mm and medium format to 6 x 6 CM) is 4800 dpi in 35mm, and I believe 3600 (or was it 3200) dpi for medium format. It uses Ultra SCSI or firewire for its interfacing. As you mentioned, it has ICE-cube from ASF. I haven't heard a price yet, but the specs sound very nice. Art
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Dan Honemann wrote: > I'd thought I'd start with the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV), since it's the > cheapest of the three I'm considering, but Ed and others have hinted that it > doesn't have high enough resolution for slide film--and I'm more concerned > about those than the negatives since I'm comfortable enough in a darkroom > for b&w work. > I'm not sure what your plans are with your scanned images, so I don't want to make any assumptions. Why do you (or Ed) think 2700 dpi is not high enough for slide images? What are you planning to do with your scans? Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy
I am wondering where the Minolta Multi Pro will fit into the mix once it arrives on the scene... Art Lloyd O'Daniel wrote: > I have a friend who is about to purchase a 120 filmscanner. He has been > deciding between Polaroid and Nikon. I've leaned toward the Polaroid in > giving advice, because of a so-far good experience with the company and my > SS4000.
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
I think there are several issues with your approach. The most obvious is availability of the service. After that, there is expense, going into an open loop system requiring more careful color management, loss of control over final print, time spent going between provider and one's business or home. Also, of all the initial outlay expenses, the cheapest is the printer (which is a pretty amazing thing if you think about it). I think silver based digital systems are great when they are required, but they change the work flow considerably. I like having my color printer two feet from my slides, my computer and my scanner. ;-) Art Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: > Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. > Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? > Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji > Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > > I will read your answers with great interest. > > Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Lynn Allen wrote: > Derek wrote: > >> If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get >> the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and >> processing. > > > Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets > from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you an "instant > replay" of what you've been doing, like a Polaroid back only faster. > Anyone who has been near a TV in the last month or two, at least in North America, has seen the Kodak camera ads which incorporate a digital image recorder AND normal 35mm or APS film. The system allows you to review the last image (at least) taken by the camera (on film), and if it didn't work, you can shoot again. This, to me is very innovative and smart use of technology, and not too costly either. You don't need a lot of memory, as it probably only records the last shot taken. The idea is not to keep the digital image, so it probably is not in high res either. It does require a color LCD panel, but those small ones much cost a few bucks these days. I wish my SLR had a device like that I could add to it, and if it were set up to mimic the basic characteristics of neg and or slide film, it would even reduce some of the need for bracketing. Art
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
I note that Sony has a new Digital camera which uses a nice little 3" CD-RW disk capable of storing about 150 megs of info, and of course, it is re-writable. The disks are about $5 each here (worth about $1.50, but that's supply and demand, I guess) Still a LOT cheaper than flash memory. The camera in Canada is about $1400 right now, that should be well under $1000 US street, and saves the need for the extra interface with the computer, and having to download to write to a CD-RW/R anyway. Of course, since CD-RW is reusable many times, to save money you could write the stuff down to a standard CD-R/RW and reuse the disks. Also, the cost of packing a dozen of these 3" babies is under $60 CAN, and takes up very little space and weight. I used to wonder about Sony when they came out with the floppy disk version of this concept, but now they are getting somewhere. Of course, I imagine that flash memory is a lot more reliable (having no moving parts) than a CD-RW drive in the camera, and also RAM is smaller and must weight a lot less. But one big advantage is at $5 a pop (or less) you also don't really need to bring a laptop with you and can wait to download the images when you get home. Is there enough room under that kitchen table for two? ;-) Art Steve Greenbank wrote: > A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete > the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a > 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). > > On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge > depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality > problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no > scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups, > immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand > held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box > unlike the damn scanner. > > I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST > respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will > maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99% > will convert to digital. > > The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say > he'd be completely mad to use film. > > I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK > government in the event of nuclear attack!!). > > Steve >
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Lynn Allen wrote: > *Stone* is good (particularly granite, basalt, and combinations of the > two), providing you don't leave them out in the sun, rain, or sandstorms > for more than 10,000 years. ;-) > > At one time, Scribes laboriously re-recorded all the World's Wisdom, and > placed it in the Library of Alexandria for safekeeping. When the library > was sacked, and the scrolls were used to heat the baths of the > conquerors, that was lost, too. "Redundancy" is the only reason we > accidentally have any of that knowledge remaining today. Any questions? I do, but I feel it might be redundant! ;-) Art Department of Redundancy Dept.
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
Walter Bushell wrote: >> >> > > _> AFAIk the cameras only support 8 bit output. Adjusting brightness > color on 24 bit images does result in artifacts, one can up the bit depth > for those resolutions to avoid the math problems, but still it's a > restricted dmax. Then if we are having problems with CCDs in scanners just > think of the problems in cameras. This might be less of a problem than it appears. Imagine you had a film which either had extremely wide exposure latitude, or could change ISO at will. In effect, that is what the MOS/CCD sensors in a digital camera do. They can move sensitivity levels within a wide range (much more than a couple of f-stops film can handle, with current film technology... Agfa and Kodak are working on new chemical techniques that could change this drastically)). Digital sensors could even be set to decrease the exposure range, so that they compressed anything outside of their range. Film can't do this, if you get over it's exposure range it simple blows out to Dmin and vice versa. Photographic papers are even worse for this exposure latitude, which is why modern labs use digital enhancement techniques to improve prints from film. If the exposure itself is "bang on center" within the sensitivity range of the sensors, then 8 bit/channel is probably al that is needed, as it is 16 million colors and hues, making for pretty much all the human eye can see. The problem occurs when we squeeze this stuff up against one side or the other of the sensitivity range and then need to stretch it back out to fill that histogram space. The we want all those extra levels to make smoother transitions to fix the loss of the color "resolution". > > How long until the selection of lenses for digital cameras matches that of > SLRs? For this to happen, digital will have to get to good enough that > the format can be frozen long enough for multiple lens types to be > developed. I'm not sure this is a problem. Nikon and others have camera bodies which have digital backs which otherwise accept 35mm SLR mounted lenses. A 28-200 zoom, but at what quality level? Remember a lens used > for digital work _must_ filter out all detail at less than half the > sampling frequency to avoid aliasing. Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is what all lenses strive toward. If any type of resolution lowering were to be required it would be done via electronic means. Keep in mind film also has a "sampling rate", although it is somewhat more randomized and right now, still finer than most electronic sensors made available for mere mortals. Art
Re: filmscanners: Can the HP 7400 series match any of the dedicated film scanners?
Hi Anthony, I am sure you will get a number of different angles on this issue, and most will be as valid as any other. As good as flatbed scanners have become, they still, overall, do not meet the quality of dedicated film scanners. The only area where their is overlap is in medium and larger format images, where the dedicated scanners are quite expensive, so some of the top of the line flatbed scanners which offer dedicated transparency drawers are similar in quality. But those scanners are both large and expensive. The problems with flatbeds are firstly they are not really designed for film which has a wide dynamic range and deep Dmax. Also, most require you scan through the glass which adds extra reflective layers, dirt and possibly newton rings with film. If you are working with 35mm film, I strongly recommend using two dedicated scanners. If you feel your flatbed doesn't give you the quality of reflected image (from printed sources) that you require, you might wish to upgrade it AND get a dedicated film scanner. You can buy 600-1200 dpi scanners for well under $100 US now that do fantastic jobs, so the cost there is really minimal. In the area of dedicated film scanners, I can not in good conscience, recommend the HP S-20 any longer. In very nearly the same price range you can buy the Minolta Scan Dimage II (USB) or the Canon FS 2710 (SCSI II) (which I expect will further drop in price now that the FS4000 is out there). Even less expensive is the Acer Scanwit 2710 or for a bit more the Scanwit 2740 which has digital ICE dust removal and IR scan channel. Some of the older Nikons (after the LS1000, which I would stay away from) probably also would make you pleased. The LS20 or LS30 are examples, and they have IR channels and digital ICE dust removal, or even the LS2000 used, although the owners of this scanner seem to still be living in the pricing world of a year or more ago, and IMHO are asking too much for them used, based upon new releases. The older Minolta Speedscan can be gotten used reasonably. Ones I would stay away from at this point are are: HP Photosmart and HP S-20, Minolta Dimage Scan (original SCSI model), Nikon LS 10, LS1000, unless you get a very competitive price, and all the other 2400 dpi scanners sold under several names (Jenotek, Tamarak, etc). If you want the best value in a really cheap film scanner, I suggest the 1800 dpi Primescan, not because of the quality, which is marginal due to the 1800 dpi, but the price is right under $250 US). To clarify, 'some' of the HP film scanners were good, but they had a heck of a time with quality control, and I went through 3 of them before giving up. HP was very nice about this, BTW, but who needs the grief. The older Minoltas were not bad scanners, either, but if you are going to buy into that class of scanner get at least one with 2700-2800 dpi. The older Minoltas (I think other than the Speedscan) were all about 2400 dpi, which is just shy of making good 11 x 14 prints with inkjet technology. If you are considering the Acer scanners, look at ebay, since there is a steady supply of new ones there at auction. In fact, ebay is a good place to look overall, since there are pages of film scanners for sale daily (used and new), and it will give you some idea of pricing. To look for film scanners, just type film scanners right into the main search box on the opening home web page at www.ebay.com and they will all show up. Also, look at the completed auctions to get an idea where the prices resolve. Now is a good time to look as many people are upgrading to newer scanners. BUT, I will warn you that film scanners are not robust devices, and they are expensive to repair. It may well be worth your while to buy new to get that 1 or more year warranty, dealer support and manufacturer support. There are very many things that can go wrong with film scanners, and they even have a new out of box failure rate that is higher than for many devices. Buying used is relying a lot on trust and the shipper not to mangle it. Art Anthony Klouda wrote: > Sorry if this is a real amateur question, but I am not sure where to ask. > > I have a standard flatbed scanner (Nikon 110 300x600) which does ok for the > types of scan I do and OCR, but am wanting to scan 35mm transparency and > film. Normally I would have thought of adding a dedicated film scanner (such > as the HP S20, or Nikon Coolscan), but was wondering if there would be a > possibility of using the HP7400 series which have a 2400 resolution and use > a transparency adapter. I have no idea about the dynamic range or sharpness > etc in the 7400, but would very much appreciate any comments on the likely > differences between the 7400 and a reasonable (not top of the range) film > scanner. > > Thanks very much > > Anthony Klouda
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Oostrom, Jerry wrote: > I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon > LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. > The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test. > > Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine, > sent to Holland--> plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not > such a popular magazine among filmscanner people? > > I skimmed the article at the news stand, so didn't get the details. I usually don't pay for magazines which have more advertising than editorial content, since I can get trade journals for free ;-) Also, any magazine which does reviews and accepts advertising is suspect in my book. How many ads were there for Nikon scanners in that issue? Maybe the scanner is even worse than they claim, but with an average of, what, 3-8? full page color Nikon ads each month (and one often on the back cover), I'd suspect Pop Photo is a little shy when it comes to criticism overall. Art
Re: filmscanners: Printing: Settings, calibration & whatever
Hi Norman, I feel you pain ;-) We may wish to carry on this discussion with me via private mail so we don't get too OT for the scanner list. I'll do this part on the list simply in case some people want to chime in with further observations: Here are my questions: 1) Which printer are you using, and what inks do you use? 2) Are you sending the images to the printer in CMYK or RGB format? 3) What printing settings are you using for the specific papers you use? 4) Have you attempted to adjust any of the printer driver settings or do you use them at default settings? 5) Under what lighting conditions do you view your monitor and your prints? The blue purple spectrum with Epson printers is always tricky, and a custom profile might be the only answer (I have not done so myself, and the blues are never quite as I'd like them) Don't assume the new printers are the answer, I get nice snappy prints using a 720 dpi Epson (Pro and Pro XL) The image on the monitor is a "back-lighted" image. You can never reproduce it on a piece of paper (until that light emitting polymer stuff comes out ;-)) Art Norman Unsworth wrote: > I've gotten a lot of very helpful information here that has allowed me to > develop the quality of both my scans (mostly using Vuescan on my Minolta > Scan Dual II) and the editing / adjusting of those scans in Photoshop 6. The > biggest problem I have is getting something to come out of my printer that > even vaguely resembles what I see on screen. I've calibrated my monitor > using the Adobe utility but get prints that are consistently, sometimes > significantly flat, especially in the blue range, but generally overall. > Admittedly, I have an older, 1440 dpi Epson and lust for a new 1270 but I > know I must be missing something. > > I've been using the Adobe RGB colorspace both from Vuescan and in > Photoshop - I don't pretend to know what is 'best' here' since I'm perfectly > satisfied with what I'm producing on screen and for the web. I've printed on > both Kodak and Epson high gloss, photo quality paper with the corresponding > paper / print quality settings in my printer software. > > I'd appreciate any suggestions / recommendations for getting print results > that more closely resemble what I see on the monitor. > > Norman Unsworth
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Raphael Bustin wrote: > In my experience, it's the dense images that > are more likely to stress the scanner into > banding. Alas, I have seen this even with > my LS-8000. It's mortal, after all (boo hoo.) The more I've worked with the name we pay extra to won, the more I recognize their feet of clay ;-) > > Mildly off-topic, but it's been hot as hell > over here on the US east coast in the last > few days, and I'm wondering if that isn't > at least partly the cause of my scanner's > recent misbehavior. Scans done very early > this morning (while room temp was still > reasonable) came out fine. > > You might be onto something more significant than you give it credit for. You should mention this to Nikon. There are a number of possible problems here, from power supply issues (both regulation within the scanner as well as the quality of "juice" you are getting overall from your power company. Also, there might be a synergistic effect here, as your computer and other peripherals that are involved in scanning (memory, CPU, hard drive, SCSI connection) may also be going into a semi-faint. Also, keep in mind we are taking about very small increments of movement to create banding. Movement of the head in the scanner (due to viscosity changes of lubricants, dimensional changes of plastic and metal parts, the dimensionally of the lighting source LED network, the dimensionally of the film itself, etc, may all be changing more rapidly than normally or at least more extremely than under design and test conditions. Lastly, we know that CCDs work best under cool conditions. So, power sources, power supplies, computer chips, peripherals, film stock and scanner components themselves could all enter into this. If you have some air conditioning, why not try putting it on and see if lowering the room temperature helps to resolve the problems? Art > rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: On dust
Frank Nichols wrote: > I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on "dirty" negs as a first step. > > I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. It > seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had any > comments on if it is a gimmick (any soft brush would work) I assume the > plutonium qty is low enough not to think about, it is there just to create a > slight charge on the bristles. > That better be polonium-210 not plutonium! Plutonium is so dangerous one atom is enough to cause cancer. It is used in nuclear power plants. Polonium-210 (probably isn't pure, anyway) still isn't "safe" (no ionizing radiation is) it is probably similar in danger to Americium which is used in smoke detectors, but you don't keep a smoke detector next to your hand hold it regularly... and the problem of discarding it after you are done with it is a consideration as well... > I also use a Leland CO2 "The CO2 Power Source" instead of canned air - since > I read so many warning about the propellents in canned air. I am looking for > a good/cheap/small air compressor with oil and water traps. But in the > meantime the CO2 seems to work well and using the brush first I find I need > very little CO2 to finish. > > Using these I have found that I have almost completely eliminated dust in my > scans. And I found that many cases that I thought previously were scratches > were in fact dirt - the PEC-12 wiping does wonders. > > (Oh yeah, I moved a small - 16x12x6 - HEPA air filter onto my desk next to > my scanwit!) > Clean compressed air is probably a good method of dust removal. You are right to be concerned about moisture and oil residue, but this can be controlled for. Art
