[filmscanners] New Driver for Minolta Elite II
Minolta has released a new driver for the Elite II, called Version 1.0.1 which is supposed to include the type of updates that were done for their medium format scanners via version 1.0.0 recently. For now, it is available at the Minolta European website for free download. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome green / scanner colorimetry
One suggestion that I found with Kodachrome when I was having problems with the color response with my good ol' HP S-10 and S-20 scanner. I could never get the color rendition correct via levels or curves of individual channels without considerable work. However, I found I was able to make a ballpark correction by going into HUE in Photoshop, and moving the top slider around a bit for each color required (via the drop down menu). A little unorthodox, but it worked. Art Bob Frost wrote: Roger, I wish it was that simple. I usually find that with old Kodachromes the shadows go green and highlights go red and it is about right somewhere in the middle, so it takes a bit of playing about with curves etc to remove the casts accurately. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Roger Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I've always found with Kodachrome is that it scans bluish-cyan when I leave the colour sliders at the default (1) position. Greens seem particularly affected by this. I have to dial in some yellow and red to match the original slides. Other films like EliteChrome usually come out just about right at default. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CD labels
I just noticed this model at my dealer also and wondered how it worked. I just read the full Tom's Hardware report. It tattoos the disk only in an area which is unused for data, after the table of contents is laid down, so it seals the disk from further data being added, and a certain amount of the disk storage space is wasted. The larger the Tattoo, the more unused space must be available, and it adds considerable time to the burning process. Otherwise, it seems pretty interesting, and I could even see someone making a bit of extra income creating personalized and art CD-R images. Art Robert Logan wrote: yup - my next purchase/ http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021010/index.html bert Bill Pearce wrote: This whole business of labeling bought to mind a burner I saw in a store. I didn't look too carefully (it was a LOT more expensive than the others), but I think it was make by Yamaha. I supposedly prints a label on the reverse side of the disc. Seemed strange at the time, but maybe this is the answer to the archival question. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CD Labeling and alcohol
The white paint that makes the label may not be a lacquer coating. In fact, the white label is usually designed to accept inks, since its purpose is to hold graphic information. Art Cliff Ober wrote: The other day I mentioned the diffusion aspects of the Sharpie inks with plastics; I took a look at some Memorex CD's I wrote about a year ago and marked on in the white label area with a medium point Sharpie (these are short-term backup CD's not archival stuff). The marker ink has visibly diffused into the white label paint or lacquer coating. The disks have not yet exhibited any problems with data loss, but I sure wouldn't want to trust marking on important CD's after seeing this... (not that I'd use Memorex for anything really important anyhow). Cliff Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Having a hard time - requirements
Hi Alex, I am responding to both your posting quoted below and the more recent one regarding buying new technologies versus older tech plus dICE. dICE is an ingenious concept and process, but it has limitations, and it normally (on newer scanners) comes at a fairly steep price. The one question you didn't fully answer in my original query to you is the last few words of the question below: What size film are you scanning? What types (slide, neg, black and white?) clean, new, old and dirty? There was a reason for my question, because it comes to the heart of that issue. dICE works on color films other than Kodachrome. It does not work on true black and white film. You indicate you use mainly Fuji slide films, which it would work on. If your films are clean, (no scratches, no dirt little dust or fingerprints) then in general all dICE does is slow down the scanning time. If , however, you have a bad processor, or older film which has seen better days, dICE can be very useful. BUT, the only scanner in your price range that had dICE is the original Elite, and it has a 12 bit A/D converter, and older technology overall. For example, the new Minolta Dual III has a 16 bit A/D converter. On a clean, new, slide, all other things being equal, the 16 bit scanner will give you a better results. The one area where the older scanner tend to be weak is noisy shadow areas. NOt only have newer scanner improved upon this (even without higher A/D converters, just due to better CCDS and electronic designs (and maybe even software which makes better use of calibration and setting white and black point) but, many newer ones have higher bit depth as well. This is particularly important with slides which have much deeper density in the shadows, especially if you use Velvia, as an example, or in Kodachrome. NOw, I have not yet seen the results from the Minolta Dual III, but hopefully they have resolved some of the lighting issues which make the DUal II tend to pick up all the surface defects. They also include a software dust and scratch program, and you can still use Polaroid's dust and scratch stand alone or PS program which is still free on their website, and works with any scan. That's what I do when I use the Dual II. There is also talk about adding a diffuser to limit those problems (which maybe Minolta did for the Dual III). Again, I suggest against buying used. Since prices on new scanner have dropped, it just isn't worth the headaches and risks. I also agree that for 35mm you do NOT want a flatbed scanner, a dedicated one will do you much better. I also do not recommend the HP S-20. It is a contraption which is weirdly engineered and has a lot of failures. It's ability to scan both reflective prints up to 5x7 (at 300 dpi) and slides and negs makes it much more complex than necessary, and for $50 or less you can get a decent full letter page 600 dpi flatbed these days, so who needs it? The only advantage to the HP is that it can scan long panoramic negs. It is 2400 dpi at the best, and many suffer from banding, fringing and other problems. The Minolta Dual III is probably your best best, assuming it has a good CCD with no lazy sensors. It will provide you with a fairly high res scan, has good optics, autofocus, OK software and a 16 bit A/D. With either the Polaroid scratch and dust filter or maybe Minolta's own, you won't find you really miss dICE unless you have fungus or fingerprint damage, but you will be happy that your shadows are fairly noise-free in those darker slides. Art alex wrote: Art, Here are the specifics: Film: 35mm Fuji color slides, new Target:8 x 10 inkjet prints Computer: 400 Mhz with 512 MB memory OS:Windows 2000 and NT 4. Interface: USB, can add SCSI. Software: Photoshop 5, thinking of ViewScan Budget: under $350 USD. Used scanners: Acer ScanWit 2720s Canon FS 2710 Nikon LS 1000 Coolscan Nikon LS20 Coolscan SprintScan 35 Plus New scanners: Epson Perfection 2400 HP PhotoSmart S20 Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III Minolta Dimage Scan Elite Thanks for helping, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:filmscanners_owner;halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Having a hard time deciding on a scanner Your question is incomplete, unfortunately. What size film are you scanning? What types (slide, neg, black and white?) clean, new, old and dirty? What are you doing with the scans (email, looking them on a monitor, printings them out (what size), etc). Some of the scanners you mention are out of production, and therefore are budget because they are used. Personally, I'd be very cautious of buying a used scanner because there is a lot that can go wrong (they are optical, electronic, electric and mechanical devices
[filmscanners] Re: rebuild your scanner and get better results
I have been in correspondence with the person involved with this website for many months now regarding this matter, and I do not find his claims to be unreasonable. He is not claiming better resolution. He is claiming better color fidelity with considerably less grain, dirt, dust, scratches and other surface defects with negatives on the Minolta Pro. The Minolta scanners, and in particular the Pro when used with negative film, tends to show great exaggeration of grain and surface defects. Due to my owning a Minolta Dual II which does not even have dICE, I was interested in this matter, because it too suffers from these problems. I have been reporting for over a year now my surprise that the Minolta Dual II suffers from these defects as it is supposed to be a cold cathode diffused lighting source. One consideration I gave was that possibly it was overfocused for the scanner resolution, leading to Nyquist errors being added to the scan and offered that perhaps selective defocusing might reduce them. At that time, although I mentioned it might be something odd with the lighting source, I never expected Minolta would opt for doing something to collimate the light (perhaps via a condenser) in order to create the perceived sharper image hardened grain and edges tend to do. But it may be just what has been done, and to my way of thinking, this only serves to degrade the image scan, because it makes it very difficult to use USM successfully. Although I don't use the Minolta much now, I have used the Polaroid Dust and Scratch filter with the Minolta scans to some advantage, but I think that ultimately, the better answer is a diffused light source. Art Major A wrote: Intresting link http://www.visicon.se/mp/ Is it just me, or do these guys see an enhancement in resolution that isn't there? They forget to mention that scanning times also increase, and they probably get more noise as well. Interesting nevertheless! Maybe I should put that diffusor back into the LS-30 that I used when debugging a hardware problem the other day? Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: rebuild your scanner and get better results
The Minolta Pro doesn't use LEDs, but cold cathode lighting. The new software Minolta recently released or it allow for exposure adjustments for the R G and B components of the scan which allow for the color variations and exposure factors from the diffusion materials to be corrected for. So there may be a slight increase in scanning time due to the additional expose time required for the CCDs. Art Major A wrote: They forget to mention that scanning times also increase, and they probably get more noise as well. Scanning times WON'T increase. All they are changing is the effective light source. I assume that the LEDs have constant intensity (it would be technically very difficult to make it variable, and wouldn't be of any advantage anyway). Therefore you have to increase exposure time to compensate for the loss of intensity by the diffusor -- unless you do that, you reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. Longer exposure times also mean longer scan times (unless your data connection to the computer is the bottleneck). It should also be noted that the web pages about this are meant to be private and the author has asked them not to be publicised as yet. Oh! The tonality argument is rather convincing, so I might do tests with the LS-30 when I have some time. Note that the film holder is probably the worst place for the diffusor, the further away from the film it is, the better. I know already where to place it in the LS-30. Andras Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Latest developments in Scanners
Hi Robert, I think the main thing happening in the scanner industry is what is happening in high tech overall. It's called we better cut our profit margin so we can sell some of this stuff before it becomes obsolete... It seems to be happening with film scanners, digital cameras, computers, printers, monitors, etc. I see little in the way of new developments at the moment. I think the current strategy is to rebox the old stuff with new colors and flavors, maybe some improvements in software, and clear the warehouses of the parts, to keep some money coming in and some people working. I suspect that until the economy improves, you will not see a lot of new technical introductions, as there isn't a lot of money around for trying new things out, and the appetite for cutting edge is fairly suppressed right now. Consumers are looking for bargains right now, or they would prefer to keep their money in gold and real estate, or, they are licking their wounds from the stock market dive. I am seeing major price reductions in most high tech areas right now, so expect to see similar product lines being sold at lower prices. Digital cameras prices are dropping about 5% every week or two lately. Art Robert Logan wrote: Ok, something truly on topic. What are the latest developments in Film scanners that normal people might encounter in their filmscanning purchase options. Any real imporvements in dynamic range, bit depth, resolution (4000 seems to have been enough), low noise levels? Once Tony stopped reviewing scanners (did you?), there seems to be a hole in the 'review' market - and I would trust the list more anyway ... at least on this topic. bert -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: No more Kodak CD-R's
Although I am not positive, I believe the Kodak Gold disks were made by Mitsui. I doubt Kodak made CD-Rs themselves. They usually find high end producers for these non-film products to make the product under the Kodak name. For instance, their very good quality Eastman Broadcast Videotape (also discontinued) was made by TDK. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony Sleep wrote: A shame that, and explains why I can't find any. Anyone got any specially fond recommendations for any other brands? I've used Verbatim, Traxdata, Philips, Memorex, never had a problem with any of them, but... I am very happy with Mitui silver. The place where I work burns lots of CDs to distribute to our regional offices. They tried many different brands and Mitsui was the only one that worked in all the CD players they tested. Mitsui also makes a gold CD that is supposed to last for 200 years. See http://www.mitsuicdr.com/products/gold/index.html. Nick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: No more Kodak CD-R's
I don't know about the warranties in France, but here in Canada, Memorex is one of the only companies which has only a one year warranty on their CD-R/CDRW disks. I know a guarantee isn't much help if you lose irretrievable data, but I think it says something about the company's faith in the product. Most other companies offer unlimited lifetime warranties on their disks. Also, be aware Memorex does not make disks, they are a re-brander. When I used to buy their disks, I used a little utility to find out who the manufacturer was, and they were all over the map. I don't think that is a good indication of repeatable quality or reliability. BTW, Memorex did originally also offer a lifetime warranty on their CD-R disks, so something happened that changed their mind. Further, when I was in correspondence with Memorex about the fact that I bought several packages of CD-Rs which stated lifetime warranty on the outer packaging and one year from purchase date on the inside, they first denied they ever made lifetime warranted disks, they then asked me to scan the cover packaging and email it to them, which I did, at which point they claimed I has altered it! I finally told them if they did not refund my money, and pay for my wasted time, I was going to send the info onto several trade magazines. They produced a check and an apology. During all this, one service tech I spoke to told me her disks Memorex CD-Rs were failing regularly, and she worked for the company. These days Memorex is just a licensed name. The products can come from anywhere. (Mine were Fuji, as it turned out, and interestingly enough, the Fuji's I had were made by yet another company still, and they came with a lifetime warranty...) Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: Avoid BASF (if they still make CD-Rs); I had one go south on me after only about 18 months. Currently I've been buying Memorex. I'd still buy Kodak if they were still made. Kodak's decisions never cease to amaze me. - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 13:54 Subject: [filmscanners] Re: No more Kodak CD-R's On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:51:33 -0600 Tim Atherton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: the following was the response from Kodak when I asked about the discontinuation of their CD-R products (the silver/gold Ultima series and the Gold audio pro CD's A shame that, and explains why I can't find any. Anyone got any specially fond recommendations for any other brands? I've used Verbatim, Traxdata, Philips, Memorex, never had a problem with any of them, but... Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compression
It is very interesting how these two threads, this one regarding the digital/film comparisons regarding the newest Canon digital camera, and the other thread regarding over resolving scans have independently come to the same issues, those of aliasing and grain. I hope people who have been reading one, are also reading the other, since these discussion is expanded by the content of the responses to both threads. I'm not sure you are suddenly retired. I think it more that you are being called up to consult. Here in N.A. consulting is the new moneymaking manner to label oneself. You aren't retired, you are brought out to consult. Along with the title comes $1200 a day fees or more. When you find your pockets filled, you go back into research and disappear for a while, until you need a new car or boat or house, and then you become available to consult again. ;-) Art Tony Sleep wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:11:05 -0500 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Can you elaborate on your reservations about his film to digital comparison?? Certainly the images he presents on the first page are compelling. Posted: Oct. 07 2002,06:02 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=22bbee94446 c12b81694a1f3749970c5;act=ST;f=4;t=15;st=60 A couple of points which hopefully add a little on aliasing/tonal smoothness, and dynamic range. My biggest concern with the review and conclusions is how the I am ever going to afford a 1DS... [Quote] Of course there will now be a chorus of those who say, Ya, but a drum scan would have really shown a bigger difference in favour of film. Humm. Maybe. But here are my thoughts on this recurring topic. I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000 PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information. Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some inexperienced people presume from the numbers. [/Quote] I agree with Michael's 4,000ppi 'diminishing returns' assessment as far as image detail is concerned, but it isn't enough to reach conclusions regarding tonal smoothness. Film grain is irregular both in size, distribution and topology, and all of these attributes interact with the fixed geometry of pixel size and distribution. What many people believe is grain in their scanned images is often aliasing, which produces an exaggerated grain-like structure comprising false colour/false luminance pixels. Avoiding this in low-pixel-count scanners is only possible by using a low-pass optical system (soft lens or antialiasing filter) which hurts image detail as well. Grain aliasing can be so extreme as to render a scan unusable, especially with grainy, fast BW silver-based films, but generally it is acceptable with scanners =4,000ppi. When it happens, the result is far more 'texture' than the film image exhibits when viewed or printed by analogue techniques. Having seen comparative drum scans of an ISO100 tranny done at 4,000, 8,000, and 12,000 ppi, there isn't much gain in resolution of image detail above 4,000ppi, which accords with what Michael says in his review. By 8,000 ppi the scan has virtually all of it. Yet 12,000ppi shows a significant increase in grain detail over 8,000ppi, with better rendition of individual grain shapes. A lot of people say this doesn't matter, grain detail is not image information we want... However, if we don't capture precise grain information, what we get through the conversion to pixels is aliasing, and a characteristically false and 'noisy' rendition of the film image. An Imacon scan at 3,200ppi necessarily adds an unknown extra dimension of aliasing noise. How much, and how destructive depends on the anti-aliasing filter and CCD properties, even the lightsource, but it is important to recognise that any comparison with scanned film is not a comparison with film itself. Pedantically, I think it would be worth doing a comparison involving a 12,000ppi drum scan, to get a more absolute measure of the differences between the film images and the EOS1DS. Not for the sake of resolution per sebut to judge relative tonal smoothness more accurately. Having said all that, I am sure digital will still win, but the existing methodology probably makes film look rather worse than it is in this respect (and JPEG'ing of an image full of aliasing products compounds the issue, to film's disadvantage). Michael's observation of moire and the artefacting of the red-shed boarding are more of the same. Aliasing is inherent with pixel-based systems, though the Foveon sensor will avoid colour aliasing and
[filmscanners] Re: Grain aliasing: Thoughts, solutions?
You are correct. Once the errors have been incorporated into the file data, it takes some much bigger crayons to hide them. ;-) Art George Hartzell wrote: Tony Sleep writes: [...] With all aliasing the easy cure is to degrade the frequency of image information so that it falls well within the Nyquist limit. Defocussing, or antialiasing filters, do the job. I presume software that attempts to deal with it relies on some sort of blur function, which is how you can attempt to deal with it in PS. It could be clever and only act on areas where aliasing occurs, but there is no way to deal with aliasing and retain the HF info that causes it. Aliasing is just an inescapable property of pixels. [...] I think that it can make a big difference between whether you degrade the frequency of the image before/while it's scanned (e.g. defocusing the scanner) or whether you try to blur in photoshop. When you do it as part of the scan, you just have to throw away enough information to get within the Nyquist limit. Once you've collected aliased data though, the problems are usually much larger blobs and you have to blur the daylights out of them to get them to go away. You end up throwing away much larger details (is a large detail like a jumbo shrimp?). g. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CD RW Problem
I don't believe anyone is using sputtered gold anymore, it simply is just too costly, and very few people would be willing to pay for it. There are probably three issues with CD-Rs, and I would place them in this order: (assuming general QC was done during manufacturing to begin with -- I've seen some CD-Rs that were so poorly manufactured that I don't care what the materials are). 1) the permanence/stability of the dye used 2) the stability of the reflective layer 3) the chemical and physical stability of the coating lacquer Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Kodak is not going to be selling CD's any more. I have used their disks with great success for years. I do not know what brand I am going to switch to. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: over resolving scans
Hi Stan, I suppose I could, but I'm much more a 'big picture' guy. I'm sure there are others on this list who live for these details and can provide you with all the fine details, but I'd have to look them up. What's most important IMHO, is that there is an understanding of what happens when a random sized and positioned set of grain or dye clouds are represented through a fixed matrix or even sized sensors. Regardless of the size of grain, or the sensor, etc, in strict numerical terms, the principal is the same. You are, of course, correct that sizes are important, but it is still the concept that I want to get across here. The places where the errors really mount up, both in terms of color and size expansion due to taking curves and making them into squares, is at the edges of transitions of grain or dye clouds with others, or with an empty background of film base. The smaller the sensors relative to the average grain/dye cloud size, the more accurately the size of the grain will be portrayed, and the more accurately the edge will be defined in terms of size, luminosity and color. Larger sensors increase the percentage of pixels which introduce errors (artifacts), and once they have been unsharp masked, the problems are further amplified. Again, this is why I keep on suggesting people consider 4000 dpi scanners over 2700-2900, if they can afford them. As I have also stated before, it isn't just the file size that matters, it is the quality and the accuracy of the data in that file. It is one of the reasons I suggest the Canon FS4000 for people on restricted budgets. For people who have more to spend, the SS4000 and SS4000+ are even better. Everyone here knows the reasons I do not recommend the Nikon LS-4000, so I won't repeat them. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Art, Can you expound on this a bit more in more concrete terms. Let's use the specific examples of a 4000 dpi scanner and a fine grained film like Velvia. A 4000 dpi scan would mean that each pixel is thus 6 microns long. What is the size of the grain in film such as Velvia? Isn't the grain much smaller than that? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: over resolving scans In part, you answered our own question. Scanning resolution isn't just about the necessary input size of a file to produce a print. I think a lot of people do not fully understand some of the dynamics behind capturing a set of random sized and placed dots (grain, or dye clouds) within a non-random set of squares, and therefore the whole discussion on grain aliasing gets lost. Keep in mind that any one pixel can only be one color and luminosity, and is always square (or rectangular). Now, what happens when you have to translate a irregular piece of grain, or overlapped dye clouds in the case of color film, into that square regular format? Let's take an example of a black and white film grain the size of the pixel, but round. Assuming it was perfectly centered in that pixel (or CCD sensor) it will be translated into a square element of a certain luminosity, slightly lower that the actual grain, since some of the lighter area surround that circular grain will influence the final luminosity of the pixel. Already, that grain is enlarged, because the round grain is now filled out into a square, and the luminosity is also no longer correct. Now, let's expand that grain to 2 times the size of the pixel element. Draw a grid 3 units by 3 units, or nine squares, like a tic-tac-toe board with the perimeter lined as well. Now, draw a circle centered in the nine squares, which has a two square diameter. You should now have nine squares with a circle pretty much bisecting the outer eight squares. Now, imagine that each square can only be one luminosity, representing the amount of the square which is included in the circle. The middle square, (Whoopie Goldberg or Bert Renolds, depending on when you last tuned in Hollywood Squares ;-)) is fully covered by the circle, so it is 100% gray, or black. The middle top and side squares would be about 50% gray since they are covered about that much by the circle, and the four corner squares would be about 25% gray to represent the amount of the circle that within those squares. Two things have occurred. One, the circular grain is now enlarged to a 3 x 3 square, and secondly, it is represented by 3 different gray levels, 100% (black), 50% gray, and 25% gray. As the number of squares required to represent a grain increase, the less errors occur and the closer the digital representation becomes to actually representing the shape and size of the grain, and also the greater number of squares that are of the correct luminosity. The way more squares are required to represent a grain is a function
[filmscanners] Re: Any views on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
Hi Jamie, It appears I'm in error here. I went to the European site which has the newest software/firmware upgrades for the Elite F-2900 and Elite II as well as the other Pro and Dual scanners. The latest version is indeed the one you have (DSE104e.exe), which I assumed was a full upgrade as the Elite II received. Like the Dual II, which is also version 1.03 or so, this is not a full upgrade with the new firmware. The Pro, Multi I and II, and the Elite II all have the newest software package (DS100e.exe) being offered. (Yes, I know the numbers don't make any sense--then again what does in the way Minolta names their scanners?). So, it would appear the Scan II (in spite of being the most recent version until a few weeks ago), Elite I and other earlier scanners are not getting major facelifts, at least not yet. Art Jamie wrote: Art I'm aware of the software download dated 31st May 2002, version DSE104e. Is this the latest one? I'm not aware of any firmware download. If there is one, could you point me to the address where I can download it. Jamie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: 08 October 2002 09:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Any views on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite I haven't tested Vuescan in many moons. It is upgraded about twice a week. A lot of people really prefer it to the manufacturers' products. Since the demo is fully functional and free (it's only limitation is it creates a watermark over the image) I suggest you try it. The one specific area I know some people preferred it to the minolta product is the ability to do a slow scan which improved the shadows by lessening the green noise. Others like some of the color accuracy features. Since the demo is a quick download, why not try it. I shouldn't interfere with the Minolta software as long as you don't run both at the same time. Once you get your scanner, you may wish to upgrade the firmware and software for it on Minolta's website. Check some comments here before doing so, I believe some people have had incompatibility problems with the newer versions. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning your monitor...
Then buy yourself a gallon of distilled or demineralized water at the grocery or pharmacy for a buck or so, and save it for cleaning your screen. Shunith Dutt wrote: Bob... Guess so... it's just that the detergent bit kind of bothers me... we have pretty hard water here and i find that generally using a water based number (diluted det) leaves streaks Cheers... SD Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Any views on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
You might be correct. I haven't tired running both at the same time. Art Shunith Dutt wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: It shouldn't interfere with the Minolta software as long as you don't run both at the same time. Don't know about the Minolta software but i sometimes have both VueScan and NikonScan open at the same time no problems. SD Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Any views on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
Are you speaking about the Elite or the Elite II? Art Julian wrote: Hi Has anyone any info on the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite, quality, scanning speeds, etc. I was looking at purchasing a Nikon Coolscan LS-30 but how does the Minolta compare to it. Is the Minolta compatible with Windows XP? The Nikon was to be bought secondhand but the Nikon is brand new with a guarantee and slightly cheaper. Thanks for any information Julian Morgan UK Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000--natural resolution
Yes. The SS4000 has a natural resolution of 4000 dpi. which corresponds to the relative number of sensors per inch on the CCD. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the SS4000 have a natural resolution at which setting it needs to do no resampling? If so, is that at 4000 dpi? Stan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Avoiding Newton rings
The cause of Newton Rings is when a space is created between two finely polished or glossy surfaces that is a very small space equal to or a small multiple of white light wavelengths, which then cause interference colors via the reflection between the surfaces. The best way to avoid them completely is to have the space between the two surfaces be wide enough that this phenomenon doesn't occur. One way that this has been dealt with is by using a glass which has a very fine etched surface which creates very small contact points between the two surfaces. Another method is to use a very fine powder (talc is sometimes used) to again create this airpace with minimal contact points. The more often the film gets very close to the glass surface, the more series of Newton rings will develop. Some people use a one-sided glass carrier to allow the film to be supported by gravity by that bottom surface, usually having the emulsion side contact that glass surface which has more texture and is less likely to cause Newton Rings. If one can figure another way to create a large enough airspace, Newton Rings can be avoided. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: I use the glass 120 film holder on my LS-8000ED because I need to be able to hold the film flat, however, I have a lot of trouble with Newton rings. The weird thing, though, is that some images have multiple instances of the rings, and others have none. This implies that the rings are not inevitable when scanning, only common ... so there must be a way to avoid them. What causes the rings on some images but not on others, and what can I do to avoid them when preparing and loading the film? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Hi Andre, I've not been ignoring you. I wanted to contact someone off-list who had a FS4000 to see if he might wish to comment, I left it with him. I have only reviewed scans from this scanner, not having used it. I would expect from the result I saw that the SS4000 was less noisy than the FS 4000 in shadows. The manufacturers gave it very similar specs, but I know the SS4000 was, if anything, underestimated in is numbers. It is a pretty noiseless scanner, although the SS4000+ was somewhat improved. The FS4000 does have a firewire connection, but is still quite slow. The SS4000 is pretty good even with the SCSI I connection. I know the SS4000 does good BW scans, but don't know about the FS4000. Art Andre Moreau wrote: - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:57 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? (...snip) The only other 4000 dpi scanner I know of is the Canon FS4000. It is a diffused lighting scanner with an IR cleaning process called FARE. However, although it is by far the least expensive 4000 dpi scanner, the major complaints are that it is quite slow (even on firewire), it suffers from noisy shadows Art, Is the Canon FS4000 suffering from noisy shadows with all type of films or is this problem apparent only with slides ? How would the original Polaroid SS4000 compare with the Canon FS4000 for scanning bw negative: silver halide and chromogenic C-41 process films ? Thanks, Andre Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Austin Franklin wrote: I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Not off hand. It probably depends upon temperature and general mold conditions. We live in a very mold prone environment here. I think Kodak had some studies which I read many years ago about suggested storage for film and they made some mention about optimum humidity levels. I might have it here somewhere... Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
I hate when that happens ;-) This was supposed to read Running Win 98, I CAN'T use Firewire Art Arthur Entlich wrote: Hmmm... This is news to me, but I haven't tried it. Running Win 98 I can use Firewire. (annoying!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't get my SS4000+ to run on Vuescan with a Firewire connection...crashes the whole system. Anyone else manage it? Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: How does Minolta Scan Dual 2 compare with NikonLS-30?
The Minolta Dual Scan II uses a six frame film carrier, and a four frame slide carrier. The slide carrier is a bit of a kludge, in my opinion. Regarding dICE, I own the Minolta Scanner in question, and I would say it would be very nice if it did have dICE. Although it isn't quite as bad as the Nikon for picking up surface defects, it does pick a lot up. In fact, the NEW Minolta Scan III, just released, uses some sort of software dust remover. I don't know what the Minolta Dual Scan III is selling for. It has USB 2.0 (which may help the rather slow Minolta Scan II, although I find it is mainly slow mechanically, and the way it does its scanning sequence) The Scan III also uses a 16 bit A/d converter rather than a 12 bit. This is the same bit depth that the Elite II offers. They have made no changes in the 2820 dpi resolution. The Minolta Scan Dual II is selling NEW for about $260 US now, due to the release of the new version. which scanner is better really depends on your budget, and if you are scanning black and white film (true BW, versus C-41 processed BW). That would lean me toward the Minolta. If you are scanning at color films, I would lean toward the Nikon. Buying a used film scanner is a bit dangerous, as they have a lot of mechanical features, and it may also take you a while to figure out if any problem is the scanner or your use of it. Unless it is a very good deal, and or you get a good warranty, you might be safer buying new. At the current Minolta Scan II pricing, that's a pretty good deal. Art Major A wrote: Further to my earlier post about the Nikon, I have also seen a Minolta scan dual 2 being sold secondhand, how does this compare? As I am in the UK our prices are somewhat more expensive, so what should I expect to pay for this Minolta. I understand that it has no Digital Ice, but does this make a lot of difference? I would definitely go for the Nikon, even if it's just for UNIX driver support (Minolta hasn't released any specs, so there is no driver). Also, if I remember correctly, the Minolta has no automatic film strip feeder, which is a feature to die for unless you have mounted slides to scan exclusively. The lack of ICE is not a big deal since the Minolta uses a Xenon lamp whereas all Nikons have highly collimated LED sources. Only the latter really requires ICE because it exaggerates defects like dust. ICE doesn't work on BW and Kodachrome anyway. Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Best of luck, and we look forward to your comments once you make a decision. Art Geoff Clack wrote: Up to my neck at work, I need to put put my film scanner quest to one side for a while. But I would like to thank all who have contributed, on and off list. You've given me a lot of very useful information to consider. Thanks again, it has been appreciated. Geoff. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Scan Dual III - new
If they changed more than the color of the case and the USB connection to USB 2.0 I just might demand a exchange/replacement. I knew nothing about this model, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Anyone else have any gossip to report? Looks nicer, at least ;-) Art Lucans, Gunars wrote: I just came across a webpage for a new version of the Minolta Scan Dual III that I don't believe I've seen mentioned here: http://www.dimage.minolta.com/dual3/index.html Gunars Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Scan Dual III - new
I forgot to mention it now is 16 bit like the Elite, rather than 12 bit A/D. The sample image they show on the next page shows a miraculous improvement in shadow info. They sure didn't show their scans looking like the before version when they were selling the Minolta Scan Dual II. This also explains why I have been seeing the Scan Dual II in Liquidation for $268 US. Art Lucans, Gunars wrote: I just came across a webpage for a new version of the Minolta Scan Dual III that I don't believe I've seen mentioned here: http://www.dimage.minolta.com/dual3/index.html Gunars Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Hmmm... This is news to me, but I haven't tried it. Running Win 98 I can use Firewire. (annoying!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't get my SS4000+ to run on Vuescan with a Firewire connection...crashes the whole system. Anyone else manage it? Howard It will come with Silverfast 5.5 and Microtek's driver software, rather than Insight. Both also work with Vuescan, a generic scanner software which works with a wide variety of film and flatbed scanners. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Scan Dual III - new
OK, one more comment. Minolta mentions that the Dual Scan II has three new software features, one a color management system for maintaining color with different monitors, two, something labeled Pixel Polish, which is supposed to do something like ROC, returning color to faded or off color images, and a software automatic dust removal, which I assume is not dICE, which is offered on the Elite II. SOunds like most of this could be upgraded on the Scan II (other than the higher A/D conversion, via new firmware and software. Considering Minolta's current status among their current owners, I strongly suggest they offer this upgrade free of charge to their current Scan II dual owners. Art Lucans, Gunars wrote: I just came across a webpage for a new version of the Minolta Scan Dual III that I don't believe I've seen mentioned here: http://www.dimage.minolta.com/dual3/index.html Gunars Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
I really tried to get them to re-label and name the features, really I did! If I get a chance over the next few days I will try to put together some of my comments at the time I was beta testing this, and make a better manual. It really isn't that hard to use (although I don't bother with it myself, unless I really have a damage film). Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second that...the not able to make much sense part of it, that is. Howard Can you give me some guidance on the Polaroid DSR filter settings. I've tried it a couple of times and can't make much sense from it. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Dimage Scan Elite - any users here?
I'd be interested in your experiences with the new software and firmware. Do you feel it has improved the scan quality, or lessened any of the noise problems when not using dICE? Art Nagaraj, Ramesh wrote: Its EliteII and I did update the new s/w from European site. Ramesh -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 7:49 PM To: Nagaraj, Ramesh Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Minolta Dimage Scan Elite - any users here? Is it the Elite or the Elite II? If it is the Elite II, make sure you update the driver and firmware that Minolta just released last week on their European web site. The new version is just out and although it doesn't follow convention (the version numbers actually go backward, and the new version is called ver 1.0.0) it corrects a lot of the problems with noise, grain and surface defects. Unfortunately, I don't believe the improvement is available (yet) for the Scan II dual but your should check if the original Elite was upgraded, I'm not sure. The Nikon's are the most in need of dICE, then followed by the Minoltas. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
On behalf of my friend, I'd like to thank everyone who answered this question. I understand he has acquired a card and cable now and asked me to forward his thanks. Thanks again all, Art Kapetanakis, Constantine wrote: The scanner will work with most if not all SCSI cards. It was extensively tested with Adaptec and Advansys cards. The scanner will accept both 25 pin and 50 pin cables. -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Which SCSI Card for SS4000 Someone who is not yet subscribed here is buying a SS4000 scanner and wanted to know which is the best SCSI card to use with the scanner on a PC, with, I assume, PCI interfacing. Also, he was wondering which type of SCSI cable he needs (he wanted to pre-purchase the cable, as it isn't coming with the purchase). What SCSI II cable plug does the scanner use, and what is required on the Card end? I haven't used an SS4000, only the SS4000+ which uses USB and Firewire, and I can't recall what the SS4000 rear looks like. Thanks, Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Actually, I suspect your thinking wasn't correct previously (and it appears to me your still not set up correctly now). In regard to the SS4000, this might explain why the 25 pin wasn't working correctly. Since it was not terminated, in spite of being the last physical device on that side of the chain, the use of the less securely grounded cabling may have been enough to cause the upset, and the use of the Centronix 50 M may have saved the day. Incorrect termination doesn't always lead to disaster, but it certainly makes it more likely. Termination stops echoing of the signal back down the cable, but good quality cables may help to prevent this problem by allowing for a strong enough correct signal that the echo doesn't cause enough conflict to be noticeable. It may be slowing down the speed if data has to be sent more than once. Also, your SCSI card being device 7 has nothing to do with auto-termination. Almost all, if not all SCSI cards are device 7. Your card is actually in the center of the chain (most SCSI cards which have both internal and external connectors have the internal connection chain making up one end, and the external chain the other). If either connection is not in use, then the card becomes the end of that side and is automatically terminated. So, in your case, your CD burner is the end of the internal side, and should be terminated, the card should NOT be terminated (which it seems in your case it will automatically decide not to do) and the last device on the external side (the flatbed in this case, previously the SS4000) should also be terminated. This is just one of the many reasons SCSI is fast being left behind for most consumer applications. The rules are just too easy to misinterpret. Apparently SCSI interfacing was one of the most expensive customer support issues facing companies that used it for consumer applications and although USB 1, 2, and Firewire have certainly had their problems (Via chip set for starters), they are much more user friendly, when the hardware does what it is supposed to, at least. Art Thomas Maugham wrote: You're correct, of course, and my SCSI card is device 7 (the maximum) thus auto termination is working. My CD burner (internal) is device 2, my external JAZ and ZIP drives are 4 and 5 repectively, my SS4000 is 6 and my flatbed scanner (last physical device on the chain) is 3 so all is well (at least for now!!!) in SCSI Land! The termination switch on the SS4000 was set to OFF previously and, of course, now it still is. With the exception of the flatbed scanner, all the other devices have been up and running since last Christmas and there haven't been any problems. Adding the flatbed scanner was simple and everything else still works. But just to be safe, at each full moon I sacriface a goat or two to hopefully keep the SCSI Gods appeased! Thanks for the good information, it confirms that my thinking is correct. Tom Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Someone who is not yet subscribed here is buying a SS4000 scanner and wanted to know which is the best SCSI card to use with the scanner on a PC, with, I assume, PCI interfacing. Also, he was wondering which type of SCSI cable he needs (he wanted to pre-purchase the cable, as it isn't coming with the purchase). What SCSI II cable plug does the scanner use, and what is required on the Card end? I haven't used an SS4000, only the SS4000+ which uses USB and Firewire, and I can't recall what the SS4000 rear looks like. Thanks, Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FS2710 to ---?
I did not, but Roger Smith has. He went to a Minolta Dual Scan II. Rather than try to speak for him, perhaps he will comment if he is around. I can tell you that Roger showed me some comparison scans. The main areas I saw for improvement were: Cleaner shadows with more detail, helped by Vuescan long scan provision. Overall more detail. Increased problems with surface defects and grain. Personally, as an owner of the Minolta Dual II, I would not suggest this upgrade path. Depending upon your budget, you might consider the Canon FS 4000. Another person on this list did buy a FS4000 (Howard). He can also speak for himself. In our correspondence, his complaints were that he was unhappy with the shadow noise, didn't like the Canon software (since updated and somewhat improved), and found the scanner slow. I saw some of his sample scans, and it is a definite move up from the FS2710, and also has an IR cleaning program. Howard ultimately moved to a Polaroid SS4000+, which is a scanner I also have used. To me, the SS4000+ is one of the best compromises, as all scanners are. It is more costly than the FS4000, by a fair amount (at least it was, possibly prices are down). It doesn't have an IR cleaning hardware (has a software process that is good, but not up to what ICE can do, and it is still not ported to Mac) but is also less required due to the diffused lighting. It is also the same basic unit as sold as the Microtek 4000tf. The firewire connection is very fast. For a lower price, and slightly less clean shadows, but otherwise a very good machine, consider the SS4000 (rumors have it limited quantities have become available as used refurbs with full Polaroid warranties and Silverfast 5.5 at a fair price) or if you are not comfortable with Polaroid, consider Microtek's 4000t, which is the same model, which may still be available new in some places. The SCSI II connection is not as fast as the Firewire, but is still no slouch. I have not used Nikon scanners, which I suppose are your only other options as an upgrade. There is the Coolscan IV (LS40) which is 2900 dpi or the LS-4000 which is 4000 dpi. These are the more costly models. They do have IR cleaning, and several other features, which some people call defects and others call things to be worked around. Primefilm has a new 3600 dpi scanner, and also made the Kodak RF 3600 (also 3600 dpi). Neither seems to have made a major impact in the market, so far. I understand the main complaint with the Kodak was software which has been updated. Art Ken Durling wrote: I'm curious if there are list members who made the step to upgrade from the FS2710 and to what. I'm overall quite pleased with the 2710, and feel that I've put in a lot of time learning how to get the most from it. I'm sure others probably experienced the same thing. I'm interested to know what exactly, but empirically, you noticed different after the upgrade. Did anyone go from the 2710 to the 4000? The area I'd most like to see improvement in is shadow noise, but an overall higher resolution sounds attractive, notwithstanding the larger files. I'm curious how much real-world difference this higher res makes, and in what circumstances it's most noticeable. I'd also like batch scanning, but that's a seperate question. Thanks for your time. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
Hi Costas, Does that mean the current Dust and scratch filter that Polaroid offers on its website for Polaroid scanner owners will be available for Mac owners too eventually? I know a number of SS120 and some SS4000 who would like to have that plug in for Adobe (and or the stand alone version). Art Kapetanakis, Constantine wrote: There will be OS X support for the Polaroid scanners. We are currently in testing. -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner I forgot to mention that the current dust and scratch filter from Polaroid is not written for the Mac, only the PC. The program is a nice extra, but not required. Art Brad Smith wrote: I have this scanner on a Mac/Firewire. A number of others on this list also have it. In general, we're a happy bunch of scanners, and I don't remember anyone who has one ever said they wish they'd have purchased anything else. Downside on the mac is that it doesn't run under OS X. I run it under 9.2. And you should note that I didn't say that I run it under Classic Mode. I've not been able to get that to work since I upgraded to OS X and classic. So I just keep my old Sys 9.2 on a separate partition and boot from it when I want to scan. I've only used Polaroid Insight scanning software, so I can't comment on using other scanning software. I'm very happy. Brad Smith Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson 2200 does it exist?
There are a number of people with the 2200 in hand. They exist (even on the west coast of Canada where I am (but are still special order)). You have hit the often created distribution brick wall, which occurs early in the launch of a product that ended up very popular and in demand. Not knowing the exact demand, companies hold back on production in the beginning, as it is better to have people hunger for a product (that has no competition for people to run to) than to flood the channel and end up with a dud that requires price slashing. Further, I suspect Epson is making sure everything is to their liking so that they have minimal returns and don't need to redesign, or if they do, they can do so before many thousands of units get distributed. So, if you must have one, bribe a store into providing you with the next/first one they get in. ;-) Art Stuart Bowling wrote: I traded up from a Nikon LS-30 to a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. Now that I have a lot of bits, I would like to see them in the light. There is some talk on the web about the Epson 2200. I see web links to places in UK (I am in the US) that sell the Epson 2100. But the US seems to be dry. I searched the web, and some photostores, computer stores, and circuit stores list the printer, but none seem to have it in stock. Even the online Epson store says out of stock. I can't print my bits on wishware. Can someone tell me what is going on with this printer? Or suggest an equivalent (or better?) A3+ inkjet? I admit to lurking on this list for 2 years. Please don't hold this against me. It is a wonderful list, and I have learned a lot from the members who post to it. Thanks. __ Stuart Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
Hi Brad, You are correct, I had a laps of memory that the person was using a Mac. I do not believe the Mac version exists yet. Art Brad Smith wrote: Art, If I remember correctly, they only wrote a Windows version. Have they done a Mac version and I've missed it? The person asking the question said he was running a Mac. Brad Smith On 8/28/02 4:22 PM, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... ... ... Further, Polaroid supplied a free plug and and separate scratch and dust filter which is pretty effective once you learn how to use it, for the dust that does show. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 fixes to improve quality--dust removal
The brush you speak of is designed for a very specific purpose. Polaroid found that the light reactive sensor which reads the location of the film carrier could become covered with dust over time (I haven't actually looked for it, but it is probably slightly recessed so the dust may fall into that little grove). If this sensor gets obscured, the motor that moves the carrier in its gross positioning, gets confused and the carrier continues to move in and out trying to find the lock. Eventually, the firmware or software can kick in and tells you you have a jammed or misled carrier. This little brush used every so often, which attaches to the film carrier, sweeps this little sensor area to assure it is kept clear of dust. It has no effect on the internal optical path. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I missed part of this thread so perhaps this was discussed...but what about the brush that Polaroid supplies that clips onto the slide carrier to clean the scanner? Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 fixes to improve quality--dust removal
Again, I suggest speaking to a repair guy, or wait for someone who has done so to reply. The brush may, if soft enough and used carefully enough, might be OK, BUT, if there is ANY oily residue on the mirror (and it may not even be visible) it can smear and make a mess. So, unless this dust is visibly degrading the image at this point (after your air cleaning process) only then would I even pursue it further, and then only with some good advice. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The mirror in the SS4000 is accessible only through a small slot unless one wanted to disassemble the entire carriage mechanism (bad move...) I can reach it with a air can flexible plastic tube. I could also reach it with a high-quality artist's brush. Would that be safe to use? Even with the air can, there is still a fine dust layer that seems not to budge. There's no practical way to get a cloth or chamois to the mirror. Stan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 fixes to improve quality--dust removal
Obviously, we are on the same wavelength on this matter... I'd love to hear what your neighbor offers as a solution! Front surfaced mirrors seem to be designed to be look at but never touched. ;-) Art HPA wrote: Every time that I have tried to clean a front surface mirror with a brush or tissue, I have wrecked it. So hold off a day, because my neighbor is a retired professional camera repairman, and I will ask him tomorrow morning. tom robinson Doesn't this depend on how the mirror is contaminated. I've not had to clean mine, yet anyway - relativly new, but others things sometimes get an oil type contamination maybe just from vaporization of oils from within the unit. This wouldn't just blow off, but I would assume VERY gentile cleaning with a tissue and a good lens cleaning liquid might do it, am I right? I assume the mirror will be a front coated one so very soft and fragile. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
I have used one, contact me via private mail for more info. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can anyone tell me if they've actually used and/or read any reviews on the polaroid sprintscan 4000 plus? i can only find reviews on it's predecessor. i have been researching film scanners in the medium price range, $900-$1500, have found conflicting opinions. recommendations? thanx much, ts Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Slightly, somewhat OT
Hi Howard, I use Powerquest Drive Image for my backups, and it seems to make a big file of everything on the disk partition. It works in DOS, and can do several degrees of compression, although I find the rates aren't nearly what they claim, and the higher compressions take considerably longer. The only restriction I noticed is that you cannot backup a partition on the same physical drive that partition is found, which is probably a good idea, since if the drive fails, well, so would the backup location. The only thing I wonder about is that you need to be sure you can access your backup files (and therefore the device they are one) from whatever the method Powerquest Drive Image uses, to reactivate your computer after a failure (with their recovery disks). As I understand it, it is via DOS. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a little confused by the conversation. If I buy a backup HD as big as, or bigger, than the master and use a program like PowerQuest Drive Image...will I not get a full backup of everything on the drive including the OS , registry, programs, files etc? Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Film processing costs (WAS: Re: Printsfromscans ...are there reallydifferences any more?)
Hi Andre, I used Champion as my exclusive processor when I lived in Montreal. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in Victoria gives a fig what they charge in Montreal... they'd probably just tell me to ship my film there! ;-) Thanks for the suggestion, however. Art Andre Moreau wrote: Arthur, Champion Imaging in Montreal does it for $C8.00 Maybe your lab could match that price...or do better ? http://www.championimaging.ca/English/Film_Processing.html - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 12:33 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: Film processing costs (WAS: Re: Prints fromscans ...are there reallydifferences any more?) That's just plain unfair. I pay $10 CAN (about $6.40 US) for a 36 exp E-6 with mounts (plus 14.5% tax!). Oddly, if I buy the film including the identical pro processing, I pay about $12 a roll plus the same tax. That settles it, I'm moving back to Spain. ;-) Art Roger Eritja wrote: Europeans enjoy paying too much for everything. I did not know that, in spite of being an european myself... but for the record, and if it matters to anyone, here in Spain I am paying 3.00 Euro per E-6 (or C-41) 120 processing (2 hours). That's around 2.85 US$ as of today. Roger Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Halo Effect
I can think of a few potential causes. One may be just the way you have the software set up in terms of gamma or contrast, however, this can also occur due to a dirty optical path, due to dust, smoke, or other household pollutants coating the lens, and mirrors or other optical surfaces within the scanner. The SS4000/+ is very open to the outside environment, and I keep the one I use under a static free plastic cover when not in use. There are no smokers here, and it is a good distance from any kitchen residue. Unfortunately, film scanners aren't easy to clean oneself in most cases, so if this is the case, you may need to have it professionally cleaned by Polaroid. I don't know what they charge. Art Robert DeCandido, PhD wrote: Hello All, I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (not the Plus version) and am using Vuescan. When I scan a slide (either Kodachrome or Provia/35mm), the white areas (such as a building illuminated by the sun; or pages of an open book) in the scan will exhibit a halo effect. This appears as a kind of a whitish or even greenish glow surrounding the white object in the scan. My questions are: Is anyone else seeing this or getting this effect on their scans? Is this something gone wrong with the scanner? Is it something that different scan settings in Vuescan can correct? Using Knockout 2.0 I can correct most if not all of the halo or after glow. However, if someone can set me straight regarding how to solve the problem before the scan, I would be most appreciative. Thanks Robert DeCandido NYC Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Film processing costs (WAS: Re: Prints fromscans ...are there reallydifferences any more?)
That's just plain unfair. I pay $10 CAN (about $6.40 US) for a 36 exp E-6 with mounts (plus 14.5% tax!). Oddly, if I buy the film including the identical pro processing, I pay about $12 a roll plus the same tax. That settles it, I'm moving back to Spain. ;-) Art Roger Eritja wrote: Europeans enjoy paying too much for everything. I did not know that, in spite of being an european myself... but for the record, and if it matters to anyone, here in Spain I am paying 3.00 Euro per E-6 (or C-41) 120 processing (2 hours). That's around 2.85 US$ as of today. Roger Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Film processing costs (WAS: Re: Prints fromscans ...are there reallydifferences any more?)
I believe overall French workers (on average) work the lowest number of hours per year, due to shorter work days and longer vacations relative to workers in the industrialized world. If my memory is correct, they also get paid considerably more per year based upon their actually work time. I consider this a GOOD thing, BTW. There may indeed be less variability in pay scale from the wealthiest to the poorest, as well, which I also think is a GOOD thing. The US (which is supposed to be a classless society), has some of the greatest disparity between workers salaries. France also has some of the best child oriented social programming in the industrialized world (another GOOD thing). For being the wealthiest country, the US is still below many for child mortality rates, average life span, literacy, the medically uninsured and other values normally considered important in an enlightened society. They do, however, lead the world for percentage of their population in prison. It isn't all about cheap film processing. ;-) Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: Roger writes: I did not know that, in spite of being an european myself... Many Europeans do not know that they are making far too little money for the work they do and are paying far too much for goods and services. That in itself is not surprising. The weird thing is that, of those who _do_ know, most think it is just fine; they seem to equate a decent standard of living with evil, or something. In any case, their (voluntary) loss is the United States' gain. ... here in Spain I am paying 3.00 Euro per E-6 (or C-41) 120 processing (2 hours). Is this a pro lab, or a so-called consumer lab? I haven't found any non-pro labs that develop 120 here in Paris, although there might be some, somewhere. I certainly wouldn't mind getting it developed for ¤3 a pop. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Film processing costs (WAS: Re:Prints fromscans ...are there reallydifferences any more?)
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Roger writes: Ya, I understood later, moreover seeing that he was talking about Paris -probably the most expensive city in the known universe :-)) Actually, Paris is not that high on the list. Major American cities, Tokyo, and London (as well as possibly Zurich) are more expensive. This is true even with respect to average income, although French incomes are distributed in a very non-American way, with highly-paid management making far more than regular employees as compared with the same ratios in the U.S. (i.e., the lowest people on the French totem pole are paid dirt, and the highest people are paid like royals). Are you sure about this? In the US a CEO makes 450 times that of the average worker in the same company (it was 45 times 10 years ago)... As I understand it, the US has the greatest disparity of any democratic country (I'm not speaking of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, etc.) in terms of salaries. Art But getting back to photography ... I really didn't know about that, not being involved yet in stock agency photography ... I've heard that some agencies won't even sell certain stock photos to customers in France, simply because the jurisprudence in France is so unfavorable to photographers, agencies, and publishers. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Arthur's personal attack...was - RE: dpi -formerlyPS sharpening
Art Stated: But I'm not the only one who noticed and caught your intent, Austin. Austin Stated: No, you didn't notice and caught [my] intent as my intent was not what YOU delusionally believe it was, whether you like it or not. Now, you somehow believe that this comment: Ken stated: Oh. Silly me. Well, I'm not taking sides here. At all. I just hoped to learn something. Austin stated: means Ken noticed and caught [my] intent, and it was what YOU believed it was? Silly YOU, Arthur. He was merely trying to be NICE with his response to you. Again, proving my point that you're simply delusional. Actually Austin, I wasn't referring to Ken's posting, I was referring to Laurie's. (quoted below) Laurie Stated: Austin, Like it or not, DPI tends to be the common usage in the everyday world even if technically it is the wrong terminology and should in the case of scanning be PPI. I think that you may be being a little picky here; but more importantly, holding the wrong party accountible for the industries terminological confusion. Let's not start another argument over language usage when we all kniow what is being referred to. The other debate at least had some substantive communicative problems associated with it; this one does not. All my scanning software used the DPI designation rather than the PPI designation accept one which used LPI, allowing one to set the PPI and the multiplier to get a LP Your posting was in its typically smarta*s tone, where you try to prove you're right and get into your compulsion with minutiae. And you specifically do this with Anthony, to try to get a rise out of him so he may respond in kind, which can then develop into yet another never-ending dispute you inspire over trite differences in language usage or deviations from your understanding of convention. Let's look at your posting again: Anthony stated: I usually leave images on my site set to the DPI of the scans, so they are always at 2700 or 4000 dpi. Austin Stated: Anthony, What on earth are you talking about? Where do you set the DPI of the scan? Scanners scan in SAMPLES PER INCH, and create files that are PIXELS PER INCH. You are saving a file that is PIXELS PER INCH. Only printers use DOTS PER INCH, and that value is printer dependant, and is NOT directly related to any of the information saved in the file. In the PS Image/Image Size window, you simply have the option of setting the number of inches and/or the number of PIXELS/inch, or PIXELS per cm. The top gives the image width and height in PIXELS. I see NO option for DPI here. When you save an image at 2700 you are saving it at 2700 PIXELS per inch, as far as I can find, there is no option for saving your image in DOTS using PS. Austin It was certainly obvious to me that the reason Anthony was referring to dpi was because the discussion was about protecting web pages images from being printed, and he was suggesting that by creating a web image file with a high embedded dpi (such as 2700 or 4000 dpi), it wouldn't alter the image when viewed within a web browser (since web browsers ignore this information even if it is embedded in the file description), but, that should a person download the image to PRINT it (get it-- print... printer... dpi) within some commonly used simpler programs, this dpi information would cause the image to be printed using the file's embedded dpi, which would result in a typically sized web image to be printed as a very small representation (basically a thumb nail, if that). Not being an engineer, and all, I guess I just missed this VERY IMPORTANT point that scanners are not able to actually sample in dpi. Your VERY IMPORTANT posting (again, quoted above), provided absolutely NO additional useful information, but may have in fact confused a few people (hence, the need for the additional explanation your provided). Of course, maybe I just don't understand enough about this obviously VERY complex concept, and your IMPORTANT posting went right OVER MY HEAD! Then again, that spacecraft that cost $180 something million that just tore itself apart on leaving Earth's orbit was probably designed by engineers. HMMM And, since I don't wish to make this exchange into something similar to what I was trying to head off to begin with, by calling a spade a spade, any further responses regarding this matter will be met with silence on my part. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
Gee Austin, thanks for that insight. I NEVER would have figured out what Anthony was getting at without your clear, exacting, obsessive attention to detail and need to find someone wrong and fix things that aren't broken. I feel SO much better informed now. What a very useful posting. Jeez Art Austin Franklin wrote: I usually leave images on my site set to the DPI of the scans, so they are always at 2700 or 4000 dpi. Anthony, What on earth are you talking about? Where do you set the DPI of the scan? Scanners scan in SAMPLES PER INCH, and create files that are PIXELS PER INCH. You are saving a file that is PIXELS PER INCH. Only printers use DOTS PER INCH, and that value is printer dependant, and is NOT directly related to any of the information saved in the file. In the PS Image/Image Size window, you simply have the option of setting the number of inches and/or the number of PIXELS/inch, or PIXELS per cm. The top gives the image width and height in PIXELS. I see NO option for DPI here. When you save an image at 2700 you are saving it at 2700 PIXELS per inch, as far as I can find, there is no option for saving your image in DOTS using PS. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
But Ken, you've missed the whole point of that posting... it is because this poster's purpose for living is to correct all the minutia(e) that doesn't conform with his reality. With that in mind, you'll certainly now understand the full value of that edification. Basically worthless to most everyone else's reality... Be prepared for another posting where he will complain that this posting doesn't belong on this list because it doesn't have any scanner content and only is a personal attack and cheap shot. This same poster, of course, will not admit that his own original posting is just a personal attack and cheap shot on another poster, because he hides his hostility behind the guise of correcting certain individuals. Art Ken Durling wrote: On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:33:15 -0400, you wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Where do you set the DPI of the scan? I'm not Anthony, but on every piece of scanning software I've owned - all three of them! ;-) (HP, CanoScan and Vuescan) Even Vuescan calls it dpi. I'm aware, from reading www.scantips.com that ppi is perhaps the correct terminology, but dpi seems to be standard usage. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Arthur's personal attack...was - RE: dpi - formerlyPS sharpening
BIG GRIN But I'm not the only one who noticed and caught your intent, Austin. You are SO predictable. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
Hi Andre, I am NOT the list owner here, and the following views are my own. I have been with this list since its earliest beginnings, however, and am a fairly active poster. Having clarified that, here are my views: Welcome to free speech. I know of no newsgroups or lists that do not have off topic or personal disagreements develop on occasion. Quite honestly, having been on this list for years, if you are unable to use the delete feature of your email browser when you encounter an off topic posting, you will become rather frustrated. There are many posters here who provide some very useful and valuable information, and some of them also go off topic or get into personal attacks and issue on occasion. Even if the list owner ruled with an iron fist, and in this list the owner both chooses not to, nor does he have the time to, some of this stuff would leak through, and also, as a community of people, it would be a much more boring list and I know a number of very active and helpful members would simply leave if the topic range was rigidly controlled. Basically, what it comes down to is that if you want more signal and less noise, then contribute signal, not noise. If you are here to watch and listen you are certainly welcome, but you cannot dictate policy or content. Art PS: I would also suggest you develop better quoting habits, it was unnecessary to post the whole message below again. Andre Moreau wrote: I just subscribed yesterday thinking this would be a great scanning discussion group but I get these kind of post cluttering my mail box. Makes me want to unsubcribe right now!!! - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! Peter, Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with filmscanners. It is simply your belief and critique about me, and appears to be an attempt to throw dispersion on my credibility. If you want to comment on me personally, as opposed to something technical, I believe you should keep it OFF LIST, or not say it at all. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest forFri 9 Aug,2002-Firnware
Firmware is the programming which is held within the peripheral. It is held in one or more flash memory or other types of chips. Usually, firmware contains information which is necessary for the basic functions of the peripheral or information that the computer or OS needs to know about the peripheral. It is a bit like the BIOS for a motherboard of a computer. In scanners it can alter things like how calibration sequences are done, how motors engage, and other things. In the past, this stuff was permanently burned into a chip, and required a chip exchange to alter it (it it was socketed). Today the chips which store this info can be accessed and written to via software and can be altered with a small program provided by the manufacturer. Art Khor Tong Hong wrote: What is firmware? TH -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 01:44:55 -0700 From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Michael, Welcome to the list. I can give you some views in regard to your purchase. I use both a Polaroid S4000+, which is the identical hardware in the Microtek 4000tf with different firmware and front end software, and I also own a Minolta Dual Scan II, which is very similar to the Elite II. The main difference between the Dual II and the Elite II are: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Help with purchasing decision?
Hi Michael, I think you will find the Microtek offerings very similar to Polaroid's. If Polaroid was on more solid footing, I would suggest it as a better option, because, up until recently at least, they provided better client support (in North America), and the software package (Insight) is a good front end (I'm not sure how the Microtek software stacks up). Since Microtek is the manufacturer, and seems on solid footing for the foreseeable future, I think you're logic makes good sense. Art Michael O'Connor wrote: Thanks Erik, Maris, and particularly Arthur, for your help. Imaging Resource is a great site for helping to make a decision, and it is the site that convinced me earlier that I'd prefer the Polaroid SS to Nikon offerings. The archives of this list were also very helpful, and will continue to be I'm sure. Arthur, the depth of your response was extremely on point and really helped me come to a decision. For some reason I'd feel better buying the Polaroid, but even if I can actually still find one, the fact that its now discontinued doesn't bode well for any future OS X compatible software/driver upgrades, so I'm going with the Microtek Artixscan 4000tf and crossing my fingers that the apparent low noise of Polaroid models is also true for the Microtek, I'll be sure to post something some weeks down the road when I've received the unit and had a chance to put it through its paces. This list is certainly a find. Even its discussions on what the meaning of is is are fun, its awfully easy to get tripped up when the same word has different refernces (resolution) and similar sounding terms (density range/dynamic range, dpi/ppi/spi) get mixed up by everyone at some point or another; its good to know someone cares. Michael O Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
I would agree with your comments IF: 1) indeed the competitors spec usage could be PROVEN to be in opposition to either standard practice or was indeed a misuse of terms. Based upon the discussion which occurred here recently regarding the use of density range, dynamic range, etc., it seems fairly hopeless. Partially speaking, this is because there have not been agreed upon definitions or standards within the industry. 2) the cost of the educative process would be shared among the players within the industry There is more than one way to damage a competitor. You can indeed play with the numbers to make your product spec out better and not play by the same rules as you competitors, or you can goad your competitor to spend their advertising budget on trying to prove that their competition is being dishonest... Individual companies lose when they try to prove someone else in their industry is being dishonest, and that is why you almost NEVER see these types of advertising campaigns used and even less often are they successful. And law suits are usually equally unsuccessful, again because the terms are intentionally slippery enough so no one is actually lying. It ends up sounding like sour grapes, and the correct party is often more damaged by it than helped. In almost every case where the public was educated in these matters it was done through either neutral third parties, or by institutes which are specifically developed (and financed by a whole industry sector) to standardize specs because chaos ensured and the public was ignoring all stats and specs, since none could necessarily be trusted to be meaningful. Art Clark Guy wrote: HI, Constantine! I disagree--- if the competition insists on using bogus specs, you should stay above that, and point out the fact that the competitor's specs ARE bogus, and why. Educate the consumer, don't try to BS us! It's been tried before by all sorts of industries, with generally bad outcomes in the long term. (look at the High Fidelity Audio community for example!) Thanx! Guy Clark -Original Message- From: Kapetanakis, Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:58 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! You are right. The max optical density of our ss120 scanner as an example is about 3.6~3.7. We measure this we a slide we made in house on Velvia film. Each step on the gray scale is .1 density units different and we look at the point of clipping as the maximum density. However, when Nikon starts advertising theoretical maximums of 4.2 ( 14 bits) then we have to start advertising the same way. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
Arthur Entlich wrote: Partially speaking, this is because there have not been agreed upon ^^ definitions or standards within the industry. That was supposed to read Practically speaking... Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT - anal(ly) retentive...
I'm pleased you're getting a good laugh from it, then, since it probably wasn't very effective otherwise Enjoy! ;-) Art Jean-Pierre Verbeke wrote: Still, hahahahahaha.:-)) Jean-Pierre Verbeke http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=161965 - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT - anal(ly) retentive... But Jean-Pierre, in terms of list postings, this is all ancient history. Squabbles on lists are like bananas - within 30 days they are long rotted away and forgotten.. they don't even refrigerate well... ;-) Art Jean-Pierre Verbeke wrote: Hahahahahahaha - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT - anal(ly) retentive... Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dark Lines on Negative Scans with HP
Great news. I hope so too. The sad part about these scanners is they are hardly worth repairing. The CCD is probably one of the more expensive parts in the whole thing. HP does send rebuilt units or warranty sometimes, so check the unit out fully when it arrives, since you probably only have 90 days on the replacement, since your warranty will have run out before then. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just got off the phone to HP. They're sending me a replacement. Hope the new one works better. Gary I'm glad you caught this will still under warranty. It is probably a bad CCD element in the green CCD line. Usually, this is a failure that is not user repairable, so the scanner needs repair or replacement by the manufacturer. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Art, Take a close look at the scan in something like Photoshop and zoom right in to the pixel level. Is the line you refer to distinctly affecting one pixel width? Also, try to view the scan with channel separation so each channel is visible as a separate image, and see if the defect is only showing up in one scan. To do this is photoshop, you need to go into the channel mode (rather than layers), and select one channel at a time. You may need to lighten each separation to see well. Never thought of separating the channels. Turns out there is a very sharp, distinct line in the green channel. If the unit is under warranty, I recommend you have it sent it for repair. Still got three weeks left on the warranty so I'll get get going on it right away. Thanks for the help. Gary Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000+ and focus
Ouch, this concerns me... just before my back went out I upgraded the firmware, but I didn't do any extensive scanning... It would not be the first time that Polaroid got a bug in the focusing system via firmware or software. Have you reported the results you found to Polaroid yet? Or are you waiting to see if someone else confirms the problem since the firmware upgrade? The fact that it was fixed (even temporarily) with Polaroid's suggestion, and then with Vuescan makes it look like firmware... Unfortunately, I can't get at my scanner (it's a few feet away right now, but I can't walk around much!) so I can't help. There are a number of other 4000+ users here, and I know some updated their firmware. Just to make sure, which firmware version did you install? Art David Sirola wrote: Recently, I've been having focus problems with my SS4000+, which I use on a Mac, firewire and OS9.2. When I purchased the unit, the scans were razor (grain) sharp using both silverfast and polacolor software. Since it's last firmware update, or so it seems, the unit's focus seems to have gone soft on many scans, not all, but most. My first try was to contact polaroid, and they suggested scanning a high contrast slide 10x, then disabling the auto focus as a trick to get the scanner to re-focus properly. This did work for about 6 to 10 scans then back to soft grain. As a test, I downloaded vuescan, and disabled the polaroid extensions. Low and behold, every scan is razor sharp. It would seem to indicate that perhaps the problem is in the software? You might say, why not use vuescan, which is a fine program, but I've grown very used to and like silverfast and would like to continue. I guess the question is, has anyone else had this problem, and might suggest a fix, or does the scanner need to go into the black hole of repair and wait 6 weeks. Thanks Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film departing soon
We have several local digital labs here providing everything from color laser prints to digitally produced silver based prints to prints produced with archival inks and papers (giclee). All of these produce fairly permanent results, and in fact some and even better than normal silver photography or watercolor images, which people seem to buy without much pause. I personally think it is not quite ethical to sell expensive prints that do not have a reasonable chance of being archived under standard display conditions. A greeting card or $20 8x10 is one thing, but if one is selling large format images at substantial prices or even small images at substantial prices, I think they should at least inform their buyer as to the expected permanence, and under what conditions the image is more likely to fail. Perhaps eventually a standard will be made and one will buy rights to use a seal or logo that is registered and authorized for people using materials tested to meet that standard. Art Stephen wrote: Hi Tom, Can you explain a bit more on what is being asked for? What do you mean by fiber? What do you mean by digital fiber? Are ink jet prints acceptable if they are done on the right paper? If not, what type of printer is acceptable? Thanks, Stephen - Original Message - From: HPA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 7:44 AM Subject: [filmscanners] film departing soon I have a full digital darkroom, and chemical as well. The market is strong in both. Digital prints are selling very well, if priced right ($10-12 wholesale, $20-30 retail, for 11x14). Many young people who are trying to get art photography shows in this region are finding that even coffee shops will not hang inkjet prints anymore, they need real prints, and that art buyers are wising up and asking for fiber. I am focusing now on digital fiber. I can tell you there is a big demand there right now. Also, all the calendar and coffee-table book photographers that I personally know are still required by their contracts to shoot on 4x5, with exceptions granted when impossible and they can use medium or miniature format film for particular shots. Tom Robinson, Portland, Oregon USA -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film departing soon
In wet darkroom, Fibre or fiber refers to papers which do not use polymers or resin coatings, such as the RC papers. Fiber papers are made of paper/rag pulp and then coated with silver halide laden emulsions, and that's it. Thiosulfates can ruin the permanence of a fibre paper image too, so improper rinsing can make a photo as transient as a bad inkjet print. It gets a bit trickier with inkjet. What coatings or emulsions are acceptable? What about mordents or sizing? Is a gelatin coated rag paper fibre? What about one with a water soluble acrylic polymer that replaces gelatin? And, fiber or not, if the inks are transient, what good is it that the paper will last 500 years? Art Julian Vrieslander wrote: On 8/3/02 10:44 AM, HPA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a full digital darkroom, and chemical as well. The market is strong in both. Digital prints are selling very well, if priced right ($10-12 wholesale, $20-30 retail, for 11x14). Many young people who are trying to get art photography shows in this region are finding that even coffee shops will not hang inkjet prints anymore, they need real prints, and that art buyers are wising up and asking for fiber. I am focusing now on digital fiber. I can tell you there is a big demand there right now. Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by fiber? I thought that all papers, for wetlab or digital prints, contain fibers. -- Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click,etc. (was: Web home page writing software)
Whether the creator of a work of art is an egomaniac or not in regard to the value of their work is not really relevant. No one knows categorically if an artist's output will ultimately become valuable to others of not. The formula for artistic success is a mix or timing, serendipity, hype, investment of time and money, making the right friends, living in the right place, exposure, and dozens of other bits of magic and fairy dust. What is ultimately important is if you wish to restrict your creations from being used or abused by others, or if you wish to be paid by anyone who would be willing to do so. You, as the creator of your work, have a legal and ethical right to protect it from misuse or unpaid use. You also have the right to choose not to protect it, or to give it away (and I have seen an amazing collection of images offered for free on web sites). Just because someone doesn't think the work in question is worthwhile protecting from theft doesn't make it so. Many of Van Gogh's works were used to fill in holes in the plaster and lathe in buildings where he left dozens of his finished canvases behind. It is up to the individual artist to determine the amount of time, energy and money he wishes to spend protecting his work. It is also up to him as to how much he wishes to charge for it. The ONLY absolutes I see here are that an artist's work is his own to do as he pleases, and that there is no moral authority to take or copy other people's creations even if it is easy to do so, unless the artist has agreed to it. Art Julie Cooke wrote: Is it egotistical to try to prevent someone stealing images that a photographer has spent time and money creating? For photographers making a living solely from photography stealing images can be and is a problem. I've only just implemented the disabling of the right click. It's been interesting to know what people think, some of the reactions surprised me. Watermarking in my opinion is a better way of deterring stealing of images. However that detracts from the images displayed. I haven't seen many photography sites use it. Julie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shunith Dutt Sent: 03 August 2002 15:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page writing software) Right on! - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:52 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page writing software) Shunith writes: Disabling right click will not stop any of the ones you mention from using your pix if they so choose. I know. I don't disable anything. Furthermore, it seems a bit egotistical to me when photographers go to extreme lengths (downloadable ActiveX controls and plug-ins, etc.) to prevent people from stealing their work. Has it occurred to them that their might not be worth stealing in the first place? There are plenty of cats, dogs, sunsets, breaking waves, distant mountains, nudes, and touristy photos in the world; most are not worth protecting, since they are a dime a dozen anyway. So, what's your point? That it's not something to worry about. Don't put anything on your site that you absolutely do not want stolen under any circumstances, and accept that there will always be someone stealing the images that you do put on the site. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film departing soon
It depends where you live. The European version comes with CD printing ability (both via some hardware device and software) and a gray balancer designed for making monochrome prints. For some odd reason Epson has decided that North Americans have no use for these things. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: I recall the preliminary ads said that this printer had the ability to print on CDs, yet the spec sheet I downloaded don't mention this. Was this misinformation? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder the same thing, having just purchased this wiz-bang Epson 2200 printer, supposedly with reported longevity rivaling Lightjet prints. I have a hard time with the idea that ink-jets are being condemned in general. I suppose they just want us to call them giclee's. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film departing soon
That's potentially very unfortunate, too. Sounds like I am going to have to provide some type of written warranty if I distribute inkjet prints as collectibles. Up to now, I use an archival process for reproducing anything I sell (graphic art more than photos) or I have sold chemical (wet darkroom) photos. But I'm just beginning to set up for archival inkjet work, and I can see I will need to distinguish these from those which might fade in a short time period. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: Sounds like the art market has learned that inkjet prints fade just as archival inkjet printers are becoming mainstream. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: HPA Many young people who are trying to get art photography shows in this region are finding that even coffee shops will not hang inkjet prints anymore, they need real prints, and that art buyers are wising up and asking for fiber. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: A note of possible interest
Personally, I think the US needs to be shunned for a while until they can act nicely in the schoolyard, learn how to play well with others and how to share. [;-)] Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Found this post on another list and thought everyone might have a passing interest in it. It was posted by Stanley Neil Glass [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The ISO may withdraw the JPEG image format as a formal standard because of a dispute over royalties. See http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/26339.html for further information. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000
Make sure your holders aren't defective, worn or otherwise distorted. Otherwise it sounds like a warranty repair. Out of interest, what went wrong with the SS4000, in general they have proved quite reliable. Art John Matturri wrote: Some have of course upgraded to the 4000 Plus (4000+?). I'm still here with the plain old 4000. I have had a problem with the 4000+. Neither the negative nor the slide carrier seems perfectly aligned, requiring moderate rotation of each scan. It is tricky to perfectly align strips in the negative holder, but I got the hang of it with my deceased 4000 with the identical carrier. That the problem is the same with the slide holder suggests a real problem. I returned the first sample but the second had the same problem. I guess I have to return the scanner for warranty adjustment when I have time when I don't have urgent scanning needs. Anyone else run into this problem? John M. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initial Scan
My experience with Insight is that is rarely clips, unless the image is quite unusual but as long as the histogram fits without clipping within Insight (even if there is a bit of extra space surrounding the histogram), you know you have captured the info without loss. Are you finding images that look unclipped in Insight which are showing up clipped in PS? As you stated, in PS you are looking at an image which is already scanned, so it requires a rescanning if there is a clipping problem. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Generally, when scanning I have just been letting the scanner software do its thing (Polaroid Insight with SS4000+) and importing to Photoshop to adjust levels etcShould I be looking at histograms before 'finishing the scan' and working in PS to make sure there is no clipping etc.I guess this breaks down to a few questions: 1) If you want to look for clipping at the white and black points is it best to look at the histogram in the scanner software (which to my eye is a bit difficult to read) or in PS after the scan is done and imported (which has easier to read histograms but would require a total rescan if there were a problem. 2) If there wer clipping at, say, the white point...what could be done with the scanner software to improve that situation and compress the histogram? 3) Same question as 2, but with the black point being clipped. Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Problems With SS4000
Hi there, Remove (uninstall) all the Silverfast software and then all the Insight software. Then install Insight, and then install Silverfast again. If you have Silverfast installed, something in the serial number protection system that recognizes the SS4000 interferes with the Insight software installing properly. Get rid of it all, and reinstall with new Insight version, then reinstall Silverfast, in that order. That usually does it. Do not try copying the new version over previously installed ones (even if it is the same version) Uninstall first! Art Robert Meier wrote: Owen, Thomas, I have downloaded and installed v5.5 of Polaroid's software. I also have updated the scanner driver from v1.3 to 1.4. Unfortunately, it still doesn't work. The same is true when I restrict Polaroid's software to use only one cpu. Since the same problem happens with Silverfast I do not believe that Vuescan would solve the problem. Maybe installing the ASPI driver will help. I'll try that later. Thanks, Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of owenpevans Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Problems With SS4000 Hi Bob, Did you load the ASPI drivers necessary for this application? It can be had at www.hamrick.com Secondly, I would download Version 5.5 of the Polaroid software as it is much improved over the 4.5 you have. Lastly, try Ed Hamrick's version 7.5.37 and with all the new features I think after you do, you may toss the other two out. Beware the 7.5.37 needs ASPI also. Hope this helps, Owen - Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:31 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Problems With SS4000 Tom and All, I am running W2k. My scanner is the SS4000, not SS4000 Plus. The SCSI card is the one coming with the scanner. I believe it's an Adaptec 2940 or something. No other SCSI devices are connected to the card. Termination should be ok as I have used the same setup on a different computer. If I can't solve the problem I think I will setup the scanner on my old PIII. It has only 384MB memory and 40GB HD but that is good enough for scanning. Then I'll just transfer the files on my just installed 100Mbit LAN. Kind of cumbersom but I guess it should work out... Anyway, if you have suggestions to solve my problem I would be happy. Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What OS and version are you using? Do you have the SS4000 or SS4000 Plus? If you are using SCSI what card are you using and what else is on the SCSI chain? Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a Polaroid SS4000 which I did just setup on my new system. Unfortunately, I have quite some problems. First when the driver for the Polaroid was installed the system crashed with a blue screen. The second time it did work, or at least seemed to work. Then when I start Polaroid's software v4.5 or Silverfast 5 the system completely hangs during initialization of the scanner. Any ideas how to fix that? If it helps anything here is my system configuration: Asus A7M266-D, dual Athlon MP1900+, 1GB module Kingston memory, IDE RAID 0, Radon 8500DV. Any help is appreciated. Robert -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Colour fringing
Sorry about the confusion, I added that note about the Minolta after I wrote the original message, so things got a bit befuddled. The last paragraph refers to the HP S-20, not the Minolta Dual II. The Dual II is a basic slide and neg scanner, no reflective, and the optical path seems to be that of most film scanners. The problems I referred to with the Minolta I have documented before, some have lazy sensors which create a line across the scan, the images tend to have aliasing problems making the image grittier than necessary, especially with neg films, and also dust, dirt and scratches are more obvious, and lastly sometimes the calibration process seems to go haywire and develops a wide pink streak down negs. Art Op's wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: Finally, HP offered me the new S-20, although the banding was gone, it had a number of other problems, and eventually it too went back to HP, and I ended up with A Minolta Dual II, a much better scanner, but still not without defects and problems. The problem is that the optics are just not good enough in that scanner. It has a very complex optical path due to the feature of allowing it to scan both transmissive and reflective things (reflective at 300 dpi, which my today's standards is a bit of a joke). There are so many moving objects in the scanner light/optical path (mirrors, etc) that I'm amazed it works at all. Art Do you mean that the Minolta has optical problems or was the above still referring to the HP??? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Colour fringing
Hi Mike: Before I make any comment, below is the exact note I supplied to my computer retailer when I returned my HP S-20 for a refund (they had to ship it back to HP, so they asked me for a defect list...) HP S-20 Scanner SN.SG8BBX Problems: 1) Color fringing (red/green) in bars going across image width Attempted suggested correction by HP of turn scanner over and cycling through modes several times. Did not improve matter. 2) excessive response to reds in transparencies, causing burned flesh tones, which are difficult to correct. 3) Double cycles eject when ejecting slides and negative strips. Sometimes doesn't acknowledge slide or neg when introduced into carrier. === Make sure your images are not manifesting color fringing from optical problems with your camera lenses (although you seem to imply this isn't the case). Look over your images with a quality loupe. Then try what HP suggested, turn the scanner over, and cycle it through the three different modes (slide, neg, print) several times, and the try it again. My S-20 had two types of fringing. The type I can see in your image, and a micro fringing that you had to zoom in tight to seem. It was a type of banding fringing that was directly related to the resolution I scanned at. It was also red/green, and it was particularly obvious if I scanned a black and white slide or a black and white negative as a slide, since it was the only color in the image. History: My first film scanner was a HP S-10. I went through 3 of them trying to get one that didn't band in the shadows, and all of them suffered from one defect of another. Finally, HP offered me the new S-20, although the banding was gone, it had a number of other problems, and eventually it too went back to HP, and I ended up with A Minolta Dual II, a much better scanner, but still not without defects and problems. The problem is that the optics are just not good enough in that scanner. It has a very complex optical path due to the feature of allowing it to scan both transmissive and reflective things (reflective at 300 dpi, which my today's standards is a bit of a joke). There are so many moving objects in the scanner light/optical path (mirrors, etc) that I'm amazed it works at all. At the time the S-10 came out, that model was the least expensive film scanner on the market. Today, there are numerous better models for about the same price (The Canon FS-2710, the Minolta Dual II, and cheaper ones (although slightly lower resolution) like the Primefilm 1800U. If the unit is still under warranty, get in touch with HP about it. If they can't replace it with one that doesn't fringe, get your money back and buy something else. Slide scanners should not show color fringing, any more than should a quality lens. Art Mike Brown wrote: I'm relatively new to the list so apologies if this one has been done to death but... I recently bought a cheap-ish scanner, an HP Photosmart S20, and I've been a bit disappointed with the results. I'm getting better results overall now I've bought Vuescan but haven't resolved the fringing issue. It's difficult to know what to expect as nobody ever puts full size sample files on their websites! I've done the usual trawl around the net but can't find fringing mentioned as a particular problem. I started off scanning some very old slides noticed the fringing. Initially I put it down to having used a cheap teleconverter with a russian lens. I've noticed the problem with other slides and negatives though and I think it's something to do with the stepper motor drive or film slippage. The fringing is always across the narrow dimension ie at 90 degrees to the direction of movement. The fringing isn't always there and is often only present in a few places in the scan (or is much worse in a few places). Rescanning produces different results, sometimes with no fringing. If anyone wants to take a look there's a small jpg extracted from a larger scan at http://www.royalwindsor.org.uk/S20_fringing.jpg. A quarter-resolution version of full 2400dpi scan is available at http://www.royalwindsor.org.uk/Wheel_wait_qtr.jpg. Personally I'm aware of red fringes on the right hand side of the verticals even at 800x600. Comments gratefully received! Mike Brown Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Messages
You're dreaming... we all just are taking a vacation from pulling our hair out (the little many of us have left, that is) ;-) Art Philip Elkin wrote: I was concerned the server was down or my computer was duff as all has been quiet on the list for a few days. However I would like to think everyone is actually busy scanning ( including myself ) without any tech problems or concerns!!! regards Philip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Messages
Thanks to Todd for that... maybe some will return to this list now ;-) Art Julian Robinson wrote: I got nothing for three days.. maybe this is because Todd has given the dynamic range discussion a special list! We are without Austin on that list, otherwise the discussion is going exactly as it was here - busily, and in circles! Julian At 06:46 07/07/02, you wrote: I was concerned the server was down or my computer was duff as all has been quiet on the list for a few days. However I would like to think everyone is actually busy scanning ( including myself ) without any tech problems or concerns!!! regards Philip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] An apology and OT printer stories
in scanners - you may well be right (and Austin says you are), but I want to know why it works the way you both say it does. So I will read and re-read your comments, and those of Austin and Brian, and follow up Brian's references (and any that you may have that throws further light - collimated of course - on the subject). Respectfully yours, Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, so I've become the someone like reference now, eh? Fine. If you think my intent here is to mislead or just give uneducated opinions with no forethought or research, just ignore them. I have found that the vast majority of people who have followed my advice in regard to scanner decisions have been expressed to me that they were better off for it, but I can't provide you with scientific evidence of that, sorry. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
Arthur Entlich wrote: Make this day on your calendar... Austin and I agree on something! ;-) Art OK, maybe MAKING a new day on the calendar is a bit much to ask, it was supposed to read Mark this day on your calendar... ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Bob, Enlargers can have interchangeable diffuse light sources and parallel light sources. The former give soft images with less contrast, while the latter give sharper images with higher contrast. That's absolutely NOT true. You do NOT get softer images with less contrast from a diffuse (typically called cold) light source. There has always been a controversy about the merits of cold-lights. Careful tests have proven that exactly the same tonal rendition can be attained with either a cold-light or a conventional condenser when the contrasts of the film/paper are adjusted to match. The contrast difference between condenser and diffusion sources is due to Callier effect which is scattering of light by the grains of the film. The thinner the emulsion and the finer the grain, the less Callier effect there is. For color film, where the image is composed of very small dye particles, there is practically no difference between them. The diffused source will tend to show blemishes less so is commonly used for color printing. Personally, I believe cold light heads give better tonality for BW chemical darkroom printing, having spend some 25+ years printing fine art BW prints... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
Oh, so I've become the someone like reference now, eh? Fine. If you think my intent here is to mislead or just give uneducated opinions with no forethought or research, just ignore them. I have found that the vast majority of people who have followed my advice in regard to scanner decisions have been expressed to me that they were better off for it, but I can't provide you with scientific evidence of that, sorry. A few credentials, if that helps: I worked in wet darkroom since I was 10 or so years old (when I built my first BW darkroom) until about six years ago when I developed a severe allergy to sulfites (that's over 30 years). I have managed a commercial lab and I also did custom Ciba work for a couple of years. I've taught photography. I have judged numerous photo contests. In the midst there, I was president and G.M, of a poster company in the US, working with a number of well respected photographers and with a major offset printer in my capacity there. I have been working in digital imaging for over 10 years, and digital darkroom for about 5. I have sold my images and paintings for about 20 years, as both fine art and as stock images. I even married into photography. My wife's father owned a photo portrait studio, and most of my brother and sisters-in-laws either run studios or commercial labs and/or photo equipment stores (she's from Quebec, they have very big families there). My wife is also a photographer, who has won a number of photo awards and contests (no, not the ones I was judging!) and she too has been a photo judge (no, not the contests she won ;-)). I've never entered a photo contest. ;-) I have strong opinions about all sorts of things. Art Bob Frost wrote: Thanks Brian, Only having taken up serious photography a couple of years ago when I retired, I don't have the background of experience that you do. It's just that every now and again someone like Art states something (without giving any clear evidence) and my scientific background says Hang on a minute, what's the proof of that?. It may be that you and Art are right; I would just like a clear scientific explanation of why you are right. Bob Frost. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: WARNING: Epson 7600/9600 ink use
Come on, after what I just wrote? I wouldn't go near this printer unless they make some design changes. Between the non-refillable carts and the way Epson is pricing their inks, this printer is not on my shopping list. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: So did you actually buy the printer? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
What is somewhat interesting about this is that of all the CCD scanners on the market (excepting the Leaf, as noted) Nikon is probably best set up to do a real BW scan. Unlike most which use a triline CCD sensor with a R, G or B color separating filter for each line, the Nikon doesn't use color separating filters on the CCD, but rather uses colored LEDs to produce the separations and a one line sensor (with all but the LS8000) It seems to me that they could have produced something approaching white light by firing all LEDS at once with a diffuser, and read the neg using the one bare CCD sensor line. I think they would then have a bit more brightness to work from, if required. Art Austin Franklin wrote: I remain disappointed that they state you cannot scan black and white as RGB positive, even intimating that one would be manipulating a lesser quality scan in Photoshop than if the scan had been done as a monochrome scan. That What they say is definitely not true. The scanner allows you to set the exposures separately and read out the raw CCD data, so all limitations they might be thinking of arise from the design of the scan software. Hi Andras and Simon, ALL CCD scanners that I know of, with the exception noted in the next sentence, scan EVERYTHING in RGB, whether you select BW/Monochrome or not. The ONLY CCD scanner(s) I know of that scan BW AS BW, using a single ND filter, is the Leafscan 45 and the Leafscan 35. So, the point is, you ARE scanning the BW film in RGB, just the scanner has it's own mix of RGB that it uses to convert internal to the scanner and then give you the monochrome image. EXACT same thing that PS does when you convert from RGB to BW, but in PS, I believe you can change the mix of R G and B. I REALLY wish scanner manufacturers would make their scanner/software so that you could change the mix there too... Personally, I believe the Leaf gives much better BW tonality than any other CCD scanner I've ever used or seen. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
is the film grain itself, which some photographers would rather suppress. We personally tend to prefer the results obtained with the collimated lighting, but recognize that others may not. Compare the sample images from the various scanners on this site, to see which suits you best. So why can't you accept that some like it sharp, and some like it soft? Some like grain, and some don't. We all have our likes and dislikes, so let's all agree that you like diffuse light scanners, but that others may not! Collimated light scanners are not per se badly designed; they are just differently designed - to suit a different idea of how to achieve a good scan. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess Nikon has never heard of the potential benefits of diffused light sources. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
Make this day on your calendar... Austin and I agree on something! ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Bob, Enlargers can have interchangeable diffuse light sources and parallel light sources. The former give soft images with less contrast, while the latter give sharper images with higher contrast. That's absolutely NOT true. You do NOT get softer images with less contrast from a diffuse (typically called cold) light source. There has always been a controversy about the merits of cold-lights. Careful tests have proven that exactly the same tonal rendition can be attained with either a cold-light or a conventional condenser when the contrasts of the film/paper are adjusted to match. The contrast difference between condenser and diffusion sources is due to Callier effect which is scattering of light by the grains of the film. The thinner the emulsion and the finer the grain, the less Callier effect there is. For color film, where the image is composed of very small dye particles, there is practically no difference between them. The diffused source will tend to show blemishes less so is commonly used for color printing. Personally, I believe cold light heads give better tonality for BW chemical darkroom printing, having spend some 25+ years printing fine art BW prints... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Grain aliasing
Yes. The new Fuji Provia F series of films use what I would refer to as a soft edged grain, which, in effect is antialiased to begin with. This provides a softer transition and is similar to defocusing the grain slightly. Velvia, on the other hand, while slow and fine grained and great for some applications, tends to have very highly saturated color and dense shadows, and leads to both higher aliasing and more noise in shadows. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interestingly, I seem to get a good deal of grain/aliaing with Velvia as opposed to ProviaF 100 or 400. Has this been the experience of others as well? Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 ED and otherissues
Hi Simon, Thanks for acknowledging that some things I say pan out in the real world ;-) The problems you are experiencing with the LS4000ED are: 1) LIGHT Source 2) LIGHT source 3) Light source (repeat down the page). The Nikon LED collimated light source doesn't ONLY make DDS (Dust, dirt, and scratches) more visible, but also G (grain). Hence, my coining DDSG as the short cut. WHY? Because the contrast is increased between the grain edge and the open space. There is a minimal antialiasing that occurs even with the grain when a diffused source of light is used. It is meaningless in terms of sharpness but it provides a buffer to reduce aliasing. Any slight loss of this type that might occur can be retrieved during USM anyway. I'm sure Kennedy can explain this in much better terminology than I, but the result is simply that collimated light increases the visibility of these film features and the more the contrast and definition is to begin at the transition of an edge (which is after all what determines frequency) the more aliasing that takes place. With something like real black and white where the grain is physical and opaque (not a transparent dye cloud) this problem will be further emphasized. This is also happening with color films with this LED light source, but it is less objectionable (until you start using the USM and it rears its ugly head more prominently). This is just one reason why I promote scanners with diffused light sources, and defocusing built into the optical path. And, for the 10+14e time, (and this is not directed to you specifically, Simon, as you probably know this), grain is not sharpness, grain is not resolution, grain is an artifact, a mechanical/chemical film feature it is not the image it is a building block of the photographic image. If I could see the atomic structure of matter, I might be able to look at my desk stapler and tell you it was made of assorted electrons, neutrons, protons and electrical bonds between them, and I MIGHT even be able to recognize those patterns as certain specific types of atoms, and even molecules and mixtures of metal alloys, due to my worldly experience, and yet still be unable to see its as a stapler. If I want a stapler, being able to see atomic structure really doesn't get me much closer to recognizing one. If I am looking for a friend in a crowd, screening for organic life form or even human life form is not that useful. Yes, yes, I know, if I could read DNA sequences and knew theirs I could find them OK, now this is just getting silly ;-) Art Simon Lamb wrote: Responses in the text below: Major A wrote: Simon, I tried scanning some Delta 100 black and white negs on a Nikon LS4000 ED and the quality was awful, using either Nikon Scan 3.1.3 or Vuescan. I tried scanning as monochrome, as colour and as colour positive and inverting in Photoshop. In all cases the preview image looked fine but the actual scan showed tiny white spots all over the images. I use an LS-30 and have the same problem. The little specks are dust or similar defects on the negative. ICE doesn't work for silver-based film list Delta 100. You would see the same thing on colour negative if you turned ICE off, I think. I also use an LS-30 and do not see the problem as badly as with the LS4000, probably due to the reduced ppi resolution. However, using the Flextight Photo and the Sprintscan 120 on the same neg produced a much, much cleaner scan. I suspect the LED light source of the Nikon scanners, which is not shared by the Photo or SS120, might have a part to play here. I can certainly bear out Art Entlich's comments that dICE is less needed on other scanners because they do not pick up the dust and scratches as much as the Nikon scanners, although the scans are just as sharp. The problem is very much less on colour negative film (in my experience) and of course a small amount of dICE fixes any remaining issues with dust and scratches anyway. The real problem I have with it is grain exaggeration. I can get much less grainy scans from a paper print. I can't seems to get a good black and white scan at all. Can anyone tell me how to get good black and white scans? Nikons only support RGB readout, therefore using monochrome and/or negative settings in the scanning software is always a lottery. I use straight RGB scanning, then convert to grayscale and adjust the look-up table in ImageMagick or GIMP (no M$ on my computer). I almost always use positive RGB settings to scan BW images, then invert and convert to greyscale either through desaturating or the channel mixer. On most scanners I have tried (must be about all of them by now!) this works fine (the best probably being on the SS120, although on that scanner I used RAW BW format and manipulated the raw file in PS for excellent results). I cannot get a good scan from the LS4000 ED though. When scanning colour slides (Provia 100F and Kodak EBX 100)
[filmscanners] OT: WARNING: Epson 7600/9600 ink use
I just posted this to comp.periphs.printers, and I know it is off topic, BUT, since many filmscanner users might be considering the new lower priced Epson wide carriage printers, I thought I'd provide this heads up. Boy, was I excited to see the price on Epson's 24 wide printer drop by thousands of dollars with the introduction of the 7600 (list $2995 US) versus the older 7000 dye based model (list $3995) or the 7500 pigmented model (list $4995 US). Not only that, but the 7600 has a new set of even better pigmented inks available, a higher resolution inkhead, etc. and they OFFER SWITCHABLE BLACK INKS for both matte and glossy (photo) paper use with these pigmented inks! WOW, what a deal. That was until I started looking into the ink situation. The 7600 uses 110 ml ink carts (up to seven of them), and each has a lovely intelledge smart chip in it, which keeps track of all sorts of interesting stuff. Each cartridge costs $70 US or $106 CAN plus tax. The new 9600 which is a wider carriage version (44 inches wide) can use either 110 ml or 220 ml carts). Since these printers use the Intellege chip, they are not refillable, and besides, Epson owns the rights to their new ink technology. The only problem with these new inks is that the formula of the black ink makes it either work well with matte papers or glossy/photo papers, so you need two different types to provide a full range of printing abilities. BUT, no problem... you can switch between the two carts easily (it takes about 10 minutes according to Epson), One of the features of the Intellege chip technology carts is that they have a valve that shuts down the cart to keep it sealed when not in use, AND, the cartridge keeps track of exactly how much ink is in it via the chip. So, at least there are some advantages to this chip system, right? So, I take the black (glossy) cart out, buy a matte black cart (about $70 US for the 110ml version) and install it... simple, right? Well, unlike the consumer models which have the ink reservoir sitting right on top of the heads, the larger carriage printers (starting with the Epson 3000) use a series of plastic tubes to feed the ink from the ink reservoirs to the heads. Obviously, if you switch types of inks, you need to flush out the ink in the head and those tubes so the new type of ink is ready to be used. OK, so the black head is flushed so the new ink is used. It turns out that the heads also carry some ink, plus the tube, so it takes about 25-32 ml of ink to be pushed through the system to clear the old ink out and start the new ink. Well, that's a LOT of ink from a 110 ml cart, about one quarter, so you would lose about $18 US or $27 CAN (plus tax) ink for a switch one direction. Switching back to the original black would double these costs. So, you say, OK, I can swallow that, or make my client pay or whatever... not so horrible. BUT BUT, Epson didn't design the printer to work this way. OH no! Epson likes selling ink a lot, they make a lot of money selling ink, and they want to keep printer prices down, so more people buy them, so they can .. sell MORE INK! Apparently, Epson has designed their 7600 and 9600 printers to use a system similar to when the printer first is loaded with cartridges when you buy it (which uses up about 39 ml of ink per color, or about 273 ml of ink) when changing between black cartridges. Inotherwords, it not only purges the black line and head, it also purges ALL THE OTHER COLOR CARTRIDGES TOO to a total of between 180ml to 215ml of ink (according to Epson's numbers), or $114-$137 US or $173-$207 CAN (plus tax!) per switch. Or, for a full circle switch over (black to matte black to regular black again) of $228-274 US or $346-$414 CAN (plus that tax, again) just to run one print in the matte mode if you have the regular black in the printer and want to return it afterward. I do not know many clients that I can add that type of fee onto their set up costs [;-)] Now, I know that companies like Epson have shifted from larger profit margins from the printer sales, to higher profits on ink, by making 3rd party inks difficult or impossible to use with the Intellege technology, but doesn't it seem a bit self-serving to advertise these printers as providing switchable black inks as an answer to the problem of their new inks not being able to handle all substrates well, when the only way to use that feature is to waste HUNDREDS of dollars worth of ink just to switch between the black inks. I'm not an engineer, but I can't believe the cost of making the black cartridge and head assembly having its own unique purging sequence would be so great as to have made it not worthwhile to incorporate under the circumstances. Heck, all the consumer printers offer separate black and colored cleaning stations. This is the type of intentional fleecing by design of the end user that inkjet companies should be ashamed of. At minimum, this information should be on ALL
[filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list
I was going to stay out of this, because I sound like an old skipping record when it comes to this subject. However, in fairness, I have to respond. Some film scanners handle depth of field better than others. For instance, I have not experienced a film frame or slide which has enough curvature when using the HP S10 or S20, the Minolta Dual II or the Polaroid SS4000 series scanners to cause any area to be out of focus. Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus with either glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. The two main issues determining whether a CCD scanner has enough depth of field is 1) the aperture of the lens used (determined by the brightness of the light source and other design issues), and 2) the length of the optical path. The scanners I mention above appear to have either long enough optical paths (the HP models are fixed focus so obviously have a fairly substantial depth of field) or a bright enough light source to allow for a stopped down lens. Therefore, I have to challenge your statement that every scanner has problems with curved film... The scanners I mention seemed to have no such problems with any film with normal curvature which I consider my films to have. On the other hand, normal curvature of film is indeed adequate to cause areas to be out of focus with at least some Nikon scanners. Art Jan Copier wrote: Barry, Ok, your right, but be reasonble, every scanner has problems with curved film (accept a drum scanner I suppose), I'm having a Coolsacn IV and very satisfied with it (manual focus is possible), keep your negs safe and flat as possible. Jan - Original Message - From: barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 3:15 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: leben list I am researching the purchase of a new scanner. I am considering the Nikon IV and others. Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon? I am told it has a focusing problem with currved negatives. Where is the Digital BW, The Print site? regards bt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Thureson Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list You're right, I missed that. I've been reading the archives over at Digital BW, The Print. Hours later, I've finally checked my Inbox. Thanks for noticing (not that we can fix it). Glenn - Original Message - From: Robert Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:33 AM Subject: [filmscanners] OT: leben list Sorry if you find this a bit off topic, but as I've some of your names on overthere, I want to ask if I am the only one not receiving anything from the Leben scan (and Epson) lists since Wednesday (June 19)? Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list
Arthur Entlich wrote: Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus with either glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. The above line was supposed to read: Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus WITHOUT either glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. I apologize for this error, as it is inaccurate as it was posted. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FINALLY, why Nikon LS-8000 bands
Major A wrote: Art, So this is where the German language is now going. I know that this is a word that is often misspelt, but only the internet allows people to write entlich without being corrected. Knowing what the correct spelling is (I lived in Germany for 18 years and did most of my education there), I tend to shiver for a second, then read on every time I encounter something like that (there are lots more of this kind). Particularly in American English, over time, the masses win. That is how words like lite or brite end up in the language, or brands like Kleenex and scotch tape, become dictionary words. I suppose it is revenge upon those elitists who either used roots from other languages to develop words, or just decided something should be spelled differently than the way something is pronounced. Over time, the more the incorrect spelling is used the more it is reinforced in people's minds, and slowly it becomes general usage. Personally, I think language should be flexible and evolving. English is often the first to come up with new words for new inventions and concepts, while other languages struggle with trying to find word combinations to describe devices. German and French are both bad for this, and create words that even Volkswagen ads have fun with. Just today, I was informed that the plural of octopus, is NOT octopi (which would be correct, if the root was in latin). However, since it is a Greek route, (okto -eight pous - foot) the correct plural is either octopodes (which no one uses, and is a Greek plural, not English) or in English, octopuses, however, I don't know that I have ever heard that word used either. So, for most, we have octopi, incorrect based upon academic word use, but in common use. My spell checker accepts both octopi and octopuses, but not octopodes. So much for word origins... now back to scanners Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: To Austin and Dickbo; Was: Density vs Dynamic range
And give yourself each 30 paces, a six iron, and wait until high noon! Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take it off line. Bill Kennedy Austin, Texas Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:Polaroid sprintscan 4000 problems
Regarding your inability to get 5.5 to work. Do you have Silverfast on your system? Some people have been reporting that the system used to assure you have a valid scanner to authorize your ability to use Silverfast is causing some conflicts with allowing upgrading Insight or even causing the scanner to not be found. People have successfully corrected this problem by removing both Insight and Silverfast and then loading up Insight first, and then reloading Silverfast. The instability is likely not related to this, however. I don't know what is causing that for you. Was it always crashing at the same time in the same process, or was it more random? (you did mention often on the second scan...) Art brian boggenpoel wrote: I am using windows 98, firmware 1.4, which I downloaded about 3 weeks ago, pointing the temp files to a second hard drive with many Gb of space. I am using a stand alone version. Insight 5.5 would not start at all. I have been struggling with this for some time, and on the suspicion that there might be some conflicting software I have just reformatted the c: drive, (after getting very marginal improvements with lesser steps) and currently only have AOL and insight loaded on the machine. Unfortunately it is still very unstable. I will now try a completely clean install of Insight 5.5 Many thanks, Brian Boggenpoel. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] A number of SS4000 available
I just though I'd mention that a number of used and new Polaroid SS4000 scanners have shown up on ebay. One sold (used) for $450 US. There is also an Microtek Artixscan 4000T for sale over the next few hours. Some have SCSI cards and software. For people seeking these units, you might be able to get a good deal. Also Primefilm 1800U units are selling new for $145-155 US, plus shipping, which is a good deal fro a entry level scanner. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 problems
I don't know the exact cause of your problem, and you didn't mention the platform you are using. Although your crashing is probably not caused by this, I would suggest you remove Insight 5.0 and upgrade to version 5.5, which has a few extra features (it is available on Polaroid's website). Also make sure you are upgraded to the latest firmware version. Then make sure that you are pointing the temp files to a location on your drive with lots of space. I suspect this will fix things. If not, please provide us with some additional info (like platform, where the files are being written to, if you are using the Photoshop TWAIN interface or the stand alone version, etc.) Art brian boggenpoel wrote: Can anyone advise, or point me in the right direction regarding a problem with a Polaroid sprintscan 4000. I have plenty of RAM, and diskspace, but the software (Insight ver 5.0) is very unstable, and usually crashes every second scan. Many thanks, Brian Boggenpoel. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Corrections at 36-bit color depth...
Earlier versions of Photoshop had quite a few processes which worked in 8 bit/channel (24 bit) mode only. Later versions included more and more processes that function in 16 bit/channel (48 bit) mode. I use version 5.5, and it still doesn't allow for filters to work in 48 bit, and several other features. The most recent versions have quite a number of features which work at 48 bit, although I don't believe everything works in that mode yet. Having said this, probably the most important areas to have 16 bit/channel functionality are things like Levels, contrast, brightness, hue, color balance, to lessen rounding off error. It is much less important in other areas. Art VC wrote: My SS-4000 can scan at 24- or 36-bit color depth. If I scan at 24 bits Photoshop allows me to process image. At 36-bits it tells me that processing is not allowed or something to that effect. Does anyone know why this prohibition? Vasilis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Bug fixes for Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite II
The Elite is supposed to have better response in the shadows than the Dual II as a result of the higher bit depth A/D conversion. When you speak of the dark areas of the neg, do you mean the areas which are dark in the positive result, or do you mean the areas that end up light on the positive which are denser on the neg? I think what you are seeing is a result of the speed of the scanner, which in effect might be underexposing the CCD element and then attempt to correct it by boosting the gain. If you have access to Vuescan, try the slow scan mode (as opposed to the multiscan, which seems to help it very little) and see if you are happier with it. On the Dual II scanners I've seen, the blue channel is very noisy and it creates a bunch of yellow artifacts in the deeper shadows. Take a look at the channels individually (you might have to play with levels to see them clearly). On the output of Dual II scanners I've seen, including my own, the shadows look reasonable on the R and G channel but the blue is a minor disaster. Let me know what you determine on the one you are looking over. And yes, the Minolta scanners do seem to suffer from grain aliasing making the scans grainier than needbe. Art Ian Riches wrote: lovely long explanation of potential Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite II problems snipped Arthur, Thanks for this! Fortunatley, my (secondhand) Scan Elite II does not exhibit this problem. What I do have, however, is a lot of noise in the dark areas on negative film. Is this a known failing? Multi-sampling does not seem to alleviate the problem. Is this just the grain that I am seeing? Thanks for any info (and any other hints on this scanner!) Ian Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Recommendation for a 2 1/4 film scanner
Your choice makes some sense, because you aren't shooting BW film, although the scan times or potential banding and poor DOF still are there no matter which film stock you use. Although the person asking didn't state which BW films his client is using, if it is true BW, and not chromogenic C-41 process BW, the LS-8000 has no beneficial features and a lot of negatives. Art Bo Wrangborg wrote: My choice was Nikon 8000ED Vuescan Software (For sure not Nikon software) www.hamrick.com 40$ Remarkable software! Film for B/W - Fuji Reala 100 ASA Pro (color) - converted in chanelmixer of Photoshop to B/W. Very wide EV latitude - a bit flat but I take advantage of that changing in channeelmixer (insted of using filter on the shooting spot) too boost use hue, saturatin and of cause brightness/contrast. If doing a picture over 60x60 cms - Use zone system carefully and use a chrome-film - grain is less there. Convert to B/W in. photoshop. But object must be in proper light as EV latitude for chromes are less. But when light AND a scilled photographer get *that* *light* and can use it - it's outstanding - however the chrome has to be able to be shoot and developed so it contains all the subtile shadows - a hard task! Zone sytem (Anselm Adams - but modifyied to digital post prossesing in Photoshop) My Camera is for MF Hasselblade only I use Minolta Multi Pro - for 35 mm it has an true 4800 dpi resulution for 35 mm and 3200 dpi for MF. (Here also the rule is, when going negatives - color and B/W - Vuescan at http://www.hamrick.com ) For those going chromes - this is also a remarkable scanner! Bu you did ask for true 4000 dpi! Fiat Lux! (Let there be light!) and Best Regards Bo Wrangborg Moderator of multipro at Yahoo groups --- Francoise Frigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, A client of mine, a professional photographer is looking to switching to digital. He mainly shoots B/W with Hasselblad cameras, only occasionally 35mm. What would you recommend in the 4000 dip range? Best shadow/highlight scans? Do any or all of these handle 2 1/4 film? - Nikon SuperCoolScann 8000ED - Polaroid PrintScan 120 - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro 4800dpi Thanks, Francoise Frigola Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Recommendation for a 2 1/4 film scanner
Of the three, and yes, they all do provide 2.25x2.25 film scans, the only one I would consider is the SS120, especially for real B+W films (as opposed to chromogenic c-41 process films). Both the Minolta and Nikon have dice (IR cleaning) which does not function with true silver based BW films. You are paying good money for these features. In the case of both scanners, dICE is quite necessary, because both tend to emphasize dust, dirt and scratches, which is why the dICE is incorporated. But that doesn't help you with true BW films. The SS120 doesn't have dICE, and it also doesn't really require it, because it uses a lighting method which diminished dirt, dust and scratches. There is a plug in and stand alone software program by Polaroid which is free which is a software solution for color films to remove dust and scratches, although it is less robust than the dICE for this type of work. The SS120 comes with Silverfast 5.5 and Polaroid Insight. The Nikon 8000 suffers from shallow depth of field, due to the nature of the design. Many people have returned their units due to this. The SS120 has wide depth of field, so the whole image stays in focus even if it is slightly warped. Lastly, the Nikon suffers from a banding problem which is remedied by using only one third of the sensors, slowing the scan time down to one-third. If a person scans a medium format frame using this method (to avoid banding) and further uses dICE IR cleaning, it takes a long coffee break just to scan one image. Art Francoise Frigola wrote: Hi, A client of mine, a professional photographer is looking to switching to digital. He mainly shoots B/W with Hasselblad cameras, only occasionally 35mm. What would you recommend in the 4000 dip range? Best shadow/highlight scans? Do any or all of these handle 2 1/4 film? - Nikon SuperCoolScann 8000ED - Polaroid PrintScan 120 - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro 4800dpi Thanks, Francoise Frigola Original Inkjet Prints in Multiple ~ Sculpture http://www.pe.net/~franou/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Appologies to Epson (950C printer speed)
Just out of interest, how does this compare to the speed when not using borderless mode (still using the USB 2.0 interfacing) Art David J. Littleboy wrote: Just a follow up to a previous note in which I complained about Epson 950C print times for full-bleed A4. Using USB 2.0, it's blindingly energetically fast, roughly 3 minutes or so for max quality borderless A4. Through the parallel port, it remains a sloth, and I haven't tested it on USB 1.1 yet. FWIW David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SS4000 - Delay in calibrating scanner...
I'm unfamiliar with this problem, but I suspect your neg film carrier has developed a problem. Make sure the track on the bottom is clean or grim and grease. If you have not been using the little brush (which either should have come with the scanner new or should have been offered to you ages ago) it is also possible enough dust and such has gotten over the sensor to cause a problem that the brush can't fix now. But that seems unlikely because I believe the sensor is the same for both film carriers. That leads me to think that perhaps some type of switch that is actuated when you change carriers may be slow or damaged. Before sending it in for repair which can be costly if out of warranty, try a new film carrier or borrow someone else's (maybe your dealer?) to try. Art VC wrote: While my Polaroid SS4000 has been behaving properly till recently, it suddenly decided to take about two minutes' time to calibrate itself after I click the scan button. The preview operation is as expected but calibration seems to take for ever, while an ugly noise comes from its depths. I have spoken with dealer service and they sent me a brush to attach on the film strip carrier and clean the sensor three times. I did but nothing changed. The problem occurs ONLY with film strip carrier. With frame carrier there no problem. Anyone familiar with the problem? Vasilis Caravitis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SS4000 - Delay in calibratingscanner...
Hi Vasilis, You can always try reinstalling the software and the firmware in the scanner. The film carrier is heavier, and if something is not grasping the carrier tightly enough, it may slip more easily than the slide carrier. If there is any slippage, the calibration will be delayed because the scanner needs to get the carrier in place so that the front cut out is positioned in the scanner to allow for light to go through that window for each calibration. There are both gross and fine movements made and if the gross movement is slipping, it can take time to get positioned correctly for calibration. Art VC wrote: Owen, Thanks for your response. I wish the problem were that simple. I checked the indentations on the holder and they look intact. The Film strip holder has not been used much, anyway. If that were the problem, don't you think that it would delay also in calibrating scanner for preview scanning? Could it be that there is something wrong with the software? Vasilis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Owen P. Evans Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SS4000 - Delay in calibrating scanner... Hi Bill, I had a similar experience a year ago. The exception was that the problem occurred with the slide holder. The problem was that the indentations on the plastic holder were getting worn and a replacement of the carrier sorted everything out. Hope this helps as the carriers cost about $20 Canadian. Good luck, Owen - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED
Hi Jim, I think your circumstances demand dICE, no question about it! In fact, dICE was invented with you in mind ;-) I think you will admit that your situation is more an exception than rule, but I could not come up with a valid argument against the logic of your considerations. Get a model with dICE, and I'm sure you'll have no problem selling that SS4000 (unless, of course, its had the same handling as your film ;-( ) Art Jim Christensen wrote: Wow what a response! First, let me say that the SS-4000 is a wonderful scanner, and it has performed flawlessly for me. The real problem that I have has is many of my slides are processed on dive boats, where water contamination, dirt, scratches, sludge, fingerprints, etc., are imbedded into the emulsion. After seeing what the Digital Ice had done with one of my slides, I was convinced. The slide in question had water marks, scuffs, dirt, and contamination in it, and after many hours retouching I had given up as it being unrepairable. I had a friend scan it with digital ice, and the output came out almost perfect. I could have used it with no retouching. Needless to say I was both amazed and convinced. I have found that when using my SS-4000, almost every scan needs a little work for dust, or specks, and would like to reduce the retouching time. I have noticed that the Image that was scanned with Digital Ice does make the picture a little softer, but again that picture was in terrible shape. Jim Christensen Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dimage Scan Elite II v/s Nikon Coolscan IV ED
I don't know if you are using a Mac or a PC and I don't know how much dust and scratching you have to deal with. If you are using a PC, may I suggest before you sell your Minolta Dimage II that you consider downloading Polaroid's dust and scratch filter, which is currently free of charge and try it with the Dimage II. Personally, I found it very useful with the Dimage II, which is a scanner which requires a lot of clean up from visible dust and scratches. Unfortunately, I have had no successful reports of this program working with a Mac yet, but I think a few people are trying to at least get the Photoshop Plug-In version to operate. Polaroid has both a Photoshop version and a stand alone both from the same archived file, which can be found at: http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html I'd be interested in if you find this software good enough to reconsider your upgrading purchase. Art Nagaraj, Ramesh wrote: Hi, I am planning to upgrade my scanner. I have Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II and I need scratch removal facility and that is the reason for upgrade. DPI of around 2900 is ok for me. I have not printed anything but may do A4 size printing. My requirements are a) DICE3, ROC, GEM b) 1000USD c) Should be good at both Slide Print d) USB I have narrowed my choices to a) Dimage Scan Elite IIFeatures: 16bit, 4.8 Dynamic range, small so very much portable,660USD. b) Nikon Coolscan IV EDFeatures: 16bit, 3.6 Dynamic range, looks bulky, 850USD. My questions are a) Which is good performer with both SLIDE PRINT? b) Does the difference in dynamic range really show up in ouput? c) Since Elite II is new model, Is it yet to undergo hardware bugfixes? I am not worried about s/w bugfixes, since I use Vuescan. Please share your personal experiences and help me in deciding on one of these. Thanks Ramesh * I am selling my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, let me know if anybody is interested ** Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner printer
Look at it, but don't necessarily buy it ;-) The Minolta Multi Pro has received overall good reviews, but it does suffer from the same problems all the Minolta recent scanners seem to... exaggerated grain, dust and scratches and somewhat less effective IR clean up. But ultimately Ops is right you need to look at all options and see which best fits your needs and pocket change. Art Op's wrote: Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro rm admin wrote: Hi y'all, I'll be spending a lot of money for a new scanner. I'll be scanning color and BW negatives, 35mm and 6x7. They'll be used for my website and to print on a printer. My choice has come down to the Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED and the Polaroid SprintScan 120. Since I'm starting with film scanning for the first time, I want to know if the Nikon is worth the extra money. Am I missing a scanner according to you. Which printer should I could consider if I want to print al least A3? Tx Derrick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
