[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic range>AUSTIN(2a) - ...
Oh no! Let's not start a long debate about whether it was On or Off topic! Can we not let this item rest in peace? Don At 06:58 PM 23/06/2002 -0400, you wrote: >I have to say, I have been following this 'debate' from afar. Very afar, >because after the first few posts I, frankly, lost interest. However, I also >wholehearedly agree with Austin's post here. I do not see how anyone could >say that the discussion was off topic for a filmscanner list. Not my cup of >tea, but I certainly think it belongs on list for those that are interested. >If a topic is uninteresting to me, but still appropriate I just skim the post >or outright delete. Anyway, I will probably get flamed for this > >Howard > >Proper decorum and respect in discussion is another issue entirely and, >frankly, I haven't been following closely in that regard. Please don't >interpret my comment as suggesting that any type of decorum can be used >assuming that the subject is on topic. > > ><< > Hi Alex, > > It comes across that you (and some others) somehow believe the "Density vs > Dynamic Rage" thread was off-topic. In fact, it could not be more ON topic. > It may not be a topic that (unfortunately ) interests a lot of list members, > but it IS an important topic (far more important than a lot of people may > understand) that does relate to filmscanners. > > There are many topics on this, and other lists, that don't please > everyone...for one example, I could care less about Viewscan and Nikon > scanners (although some of the discussion about Nikon scanners does interest > me), but they ARE related to film scanners, and do belong here...except when > this group becomes a Viewscan support group...now that's out of line IMO. > > I believe this group is everything from "how do I turn my scanner on" to > "what is the spectral response of the LEDs in the Nikon 8000ED > scanner"...it's all about filmscanners. > > Regards, > > Austin > >> > >--- >- >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: Density vs Dynamic range
If this thread continues any longer, I will put all of the participants in my killfile. That would be a shame because I think you all appear to be the kind of people that I would normally like to read the comments of. This isn't like a Usenet group where I can easily ignore a thread. Instead my Inbox is continually bombarded. Can we not take this offline, please? Don At 08:49 PM 12/06/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Here I go again. I understand what both of you are saying; and you are both >right except you are approaching the topic from two different points of view >and philosophies. It is almost like the tree that falls in the forest >question at if it makes an noise if no one is there to hear it or not. In >short if one assumes a phenomenological approach to the philosophy of >science and to the nature of knowledge and reality, one says their is not >any reality apart from that which is conceived, perceived, or experienced. >Truth is the coherence between reality and knowledge of it and not a >one-to-one correspondence. However if one assume a logical positivist >philosphopy of science and approach to knowledge and reality, one assumes >that their is an objective reality apart from our conception, perception, or >experience of it which is knowable and measurable independent of us and to >which our theories and knowledge correspond if they are true. Anthony, I >believe is asserting something closer to the former, while Austin seems to >be assering somthing closer to the latter. > >Austin, Anthony's assertion is similar to your saying that there is no >useful density range below the noise for any or all practical purposes - >even if it may or may not exist theoretically beyond our ability to >experience it. This discussion brings to mind the Einstein versus >Heisenberg dispute over the uncertainty principle. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin >Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:17 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range > > > >> > ... if your luminosity range contains a 6 stop >> > range, which is within the tolerance of slide >> > film, and you shoot the scene on slide film and >> > neg film, of the two frames of film I believe >> > the slide frame would be the one with the higher >> > dynamic range. >> >> No passive system has dynamic range. Slides and negatives do not, in >> themselves, have dynamic range. Only the combination of a slide >> or negative >> with some sort of active process--such as viewing, scanning, exposure, or >> development--can have dynamic range. > >Anthony, > >That's absolutely wrong. Film, in and of it self, has dynamic range. There >IS noise in film, it exists whether it's being viewed or not. There is also >a range of density that is recorded on the film, and that's all that is >needed to determine dynamic range. > >Of course, you do have to do something "active" to measure the noise, just >like music has to be played to measure the noise, but that doesn't mean the >content doesn't have inherent noise, and range in it. It seems like you are >claiming an audio system has no noise, because it's not turned on, which is >entirely different than the noise inherent in the media, which exists even >when it's not being "used". > >> Slides and negatives have >> only density >> ranges inherently, not dynamic ranges. > >So you claim film has no inherent noise, in and of it self, unless you are >"viewing" it? Does the noise of music recorded on a CD not exist until it >isn't being played? > >I think you're being really obscure here... > >Austin > > > >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: Sharpening and JPEG/TIFF (was: Color spaces fordifferent purposes)
I think you should reread what Ken and I are saying - the effect of sharpening is more visible in a low res image, no more no less. Your lengthy explanation below is helpful in explaining why it is more visible. Thank you for that. The original response sailed by his question and I was re-emphasizing his observation. Don At 05:23 PM 09/06/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Don, your support of Ken is a bit misplaced. TIFF vs. JPEG is non >sequitur, Anthony is correct. This is about the pixels in the image, >not about the file format in which it's saved. > >When an unsharp mask (a.k.a. sharpening) is applied to an image, it is >enhancing the contrast of "edges" or areas of rapid level transition by >lightening the light side, and darkening the dark side. This is done to >the actual pixels in an image, independent of the image size resolution >setting. The software analyzes the image and applies the sharpening >effect within a certain pixel distance; this is the "Radius" setting in >Photoshop's Unsharp mask, a typical distance could be e.g. 0.7 pixels. > >If you open your 27 MB file and the low res catalog scan, then apply the >same unsharp mask to both, the edges enhancement is applied to the same >distance in pixels around that edge in the image. These pixels, however, >represent quite different distance in the image. If you view both at >100% resolution, and both happened to have a narrow feature 3 pixels >wide in both, they both would be appear "sharpened" exactly the same. > >Now, naturally, a feature 3 pixels wide in the low-res image would be >something close to 15 pixels wide in the high-res image. Therefore the >edge-enhancing effect would appear much more pronounced on the low-res >one. If you compared them side-by-side, your catalog scan might be all >visible in the window when viewed at 100%; while the high-res would have >to be zoomed out to 20% of actual, and the sharpening effect would be >miniaturized on screen and be far less noticable. > >This is why you should never apply the unsharp masking on your high-res >scans until the final target use of the image is known, and, if >necessary, the image is resampled down for that use. For example, if >you print a 360dpi image on a high quality inkjet printer on glossy >media, you would need just a little unsharp masking, whereas printing >the same image on offset press where the 4-color process screening will >make images appear much softer you would need to apply a much stronger >unsharp mask for the same final apparent crispness. > >If this same image was used for web, you would first downsample it to >72dpi, then unsharp mask it for appropriate level of crispness at that >resolution. > >Sami > >Ken wrote: >>>> ... but could someone offer a technical explanation >>>> of why sharpening has so much more visible effect >>>> on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? > >At 10:22 AM 09/06/2002 +0200, Anthony wrote: >>> It doesn't. > >On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 07:46 AM, Don Marcotte wrote: >> I support Ken. I'm currently scanning a large number of rolls of >> negative >> film. They are just 10x.6.67 inch by 72 ppi images for screen display. >> I'm >> keeping them in an electronic catalog of my images. Unless something has >> changed in Photo Shop 7, which I recently acquired, sharpening is much >> more >> noticeable on these small JPEGs than on 27MB TIFFs that I use for >> printing >> or creating slides. I would like to emphasize the word "visible" in >> Ken's >> question. > > > >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: Onboard Graphics and Filmscanning
I use an onboard video card (8MB?) in an 800MHz Pentium 3, 512MB RAM PC. I can't compare speeds to a 32MB video card but the speed of my editing is fine. Maybe I don't appreciate the speed of a 32MB video card but I can't imagine a huge difference when I manipulating 27MB (8 bit) or 55MB (16 bit) images. Changes in PS7 are very quick, a fraction of a second usually. Scanning is a different story but that has nothing to do with the video card. Don At 03:08 PM 09/06/2002 +0100, you wrote: >A friend with a Coolscan IV and a very slow PC wants a faster PC. > >For a similar price I can build at fast 1700 Athlon, 512 meg RAM with a >separate 32 Meg video card PC or he can purchase a similar spec machine >ready built with onboard video that shares the system RAM. > >The cost of machines ready built with a separate card is considerably >dearer. > >Has any one edited say 30 Meg scans with a machine with onboard video,. My >thoughts are it will be noticeably slower than a machine with a separate 32 >meg video card. > >If not, it saves me building him a machine. Comments please. > >Eddie > > > > >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: Color spaces for different purposes
I support Ken. I'm currently scanning a large number of rolls of negative film. They are just 10x.6.67 inch by 72 ppi images for screen display. I'm keeping them in an electronic catalog of my images. Unless something has changed in Photo Shop 7, which I recently acquired, sharpening is much more noticeable on these small JPEGs than on 27MB TIFFs that I use for printing or creating slides. I would like to emphasize the word "visible" in Ken's question. Don At 10:22 AM 09/06/2002 +0200, you wrote: >Ken writes: > >> ... but could someone offer a technical explanation >> of why sharpening has so much more visible effect >> on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? > >It doesn't. > > > >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
