Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 vs Nikon ED4000 comparison test
Rick - This was a very well done comparison test. I have several comments, and a suggestion: It would seem that the SS4000 outperformed the ED4000 in shadow detail. The ED4000 seems to have outperformed the SS4000 by capturing a greater portion of the Q60 E6 target gamut. (see plots sent directly to you) Regarding the capture of colors. Your jpgs of the Q60 target use AdobeRGB as the embedded ICC profile. I am wondering if you used this profile in the actual scan. You will note in the two pictures I sent you direct (40kb each) that each of the two scans seems bounded by the AdobeRGB profile perimeter in certain regions, as viewed in a 2D L.a.b. plot. Since Ektachrome is a wide gamut film media, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind scanning using EktaspaceRGB, which, according to J. Homes, bounds the E6 gamut like a tight glove - no more, no less. EktaSpaceRGB is a broader gamut space than AdobeRGB, which is evident in the two plots. It may turn out that the potential gamut latitude of each scanner was limited, or clipped by the use of AdobeRGB. In any case, it seems that the ED4000 capture of the target gamut was broader in all regions, except possibly the yellow area. >I am been very pleased with my Polaroid SS4000 scanner over the past year, >but have been suffering some scanner envy when reading about the new Nikon >ED4000 scanner's advertised improved dynamic range and ICE dust removal. >Therefore I performed some tests to compare the two scanners in an attempt >to validate the ED4000's hype (and my envy). The tests and their results >can be seen at http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm > >- Rick
Re: filmscanners: Superia vs Reala
The Fuji pro NPC 160 is indeed high contrast, and if you want smooth textures of skintones (without accentuating wrinkles from contrast), suggest instead the (Fuji) pro NPH 400, or the pro NHG II 800 for both speed, great depth of field in poor light, excellent gamut, mod/low contrast (plus 10/11 fstop light latitude). You can get all the contrast you want in Photoshop, but you can't undo contrasty wrinkles in skintone on the negative. Of course, some people like the "weathered" look. Both of these negative films will record colors whose gamuts exceed ColorMatchRGB (and thus what an Epson 1270 will print). >Hi, > >> >Which is better (Reala or Superia) >>>at the same ISO? Given that I like Reala, >>>would I like Superia? > >Reala is the same emulsion as Fuji uses in their APS films. In order >to produce decent results on APS they've had to reduce the grain >size dramatically. This is now to the benefit of 35mm film as they >are improved by using the same technology. > >As far as I remember the datasheets for Superia and Reala at the >same ISO, Reala is a tad better (sharper). Furthermore, Reala >produces natural colors even under florescent light. I don't know it >the latter is a result of some knob tweaking in the printing lab or >not... > >Another film you may want to try is Fuji NPC 160. It's a >professional high contrast negative film rated at ISO 160. It prints >similar to Reala -- it's just 2/3 stop faster. > > > >Tom
Re: filmscanners: OT: Device recognition, Win 98
For Apple only. This type of situation has been rectified sometimes - for instance in certain CD machines - by using RESEDIT, and changing the ID in the driver. Do you know if this is an ID issue or what? Inquiry commands must include some form of ID - - -? No idea what PC users can do in a similar way. > >The Microtek and Polaroid scanners are almost identical, but >they return different strings from the scsi inquiry command. >This keeps the Polaroid scanners from working with the >Microtek software and vice versa. There's nothing to prevent >Polaroid and Microtek from making their software run on >each other's scanners, but they haven't done this. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > >> Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't >> use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. > >Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost >certainly was not-quite-standard at all. Note necessarily. Many scanners have auto termination built into their twin connectors (inside the box). Which allows you to simply connect the cable and leave the other SCSI connector "open". I think most devices have built in termination so that the hap hazard users won't blow their SCSI cards, or motherboards (in the case of Apple). Either this, or they gave you a terminator, which was a small 50 pin plug-in device that had two L.E.D.s on it. In any event, you don't want to leave a SCSI bus unterminated. Ever. >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner >info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Colour fix problem
Title: Re: filmscanners: Colour fix problem The greenmig photo can be color corrected and fixed - fairly easily. (corrected greenmig sent direct to poster, with PS adjustments shown on graphics of each modification) He uses PSP, which I have no knowledge about, so some adjustments may not be easily accomplished, such as Selective Color, which was used to take the yellow out of the white floor. Neither the film captured (greenmig) nor the digimig photos exhibit broad gamut as shown below in two 9kb graphics. Both are 2D L.a.b. graphics, referencing ColorMatchRGB in the green outline with the color gamut data of the picture (extracted from the photo in ColorThink) shown as red. The film photo actually has a broader gamut than the digital picture. The scene itself was not a particularly saturated color situation. See comparison with ColorMatchRGB gamut. Original greenmig: The digimig photo: on 6/9/01 1:26 PM, Ian Boag at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have attached two heavily crunched down photos. I am looking for help > here on how to fix one of them. Last year I went to the RAF museum at > Hendon. I took pictures on regular Fuji 200 film using a Konica Revio APS > camera. I also had an Agfa 1680 digicam. The museum has some kind of arc > lighting which came out all green in the prints. It scans like that too. > See greenmig.jpg (the pic is a Mig-15). The scan was done on a Kodak > FD-300. Comes out much the same whether I use their auto fix on scanning or > not. The digicam took a picture that looks about right (see digimig.jpg). > Generally the FD-300 does a job that I am happy with. > > My problem is how to fix the green scans. If I just throw in magenta > correction I eventually get the plane looking right, but the roof and > surroundings go bad. The situation is complicated of course by the fact > that the camera suffers from vignetting at full aperture on max wide. > The problem is that the film captures what data fits in it's gamut at the time of the shot, and information is just not there for you to adjust the color. The digicam is probably doing a white balance and capturing a different gamut. Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: Infrared scan
If you purchase a high resolution scanner which now is prone to give you image artifacts generated by a micro bleb or dust particle (see ragged edges - below) on the film, and then negate the high dpi by applying ICE which - in effect - smoothes (or smears) the entire image (like blurring in PS), what have you got for all that effort and expense? Something doesn't compute. It would seem that you don't want a scanner or scanner settings which resolve and portray non-image details. You do want higher dynamic range (unrelated to high dpi?) to get shadow detail, but what do you really get beyond that? Except huge files. And then you hear that with these huge files you can print huge pictures. With smeared pixels? With dust artifacts? Someone please comment on this with more common sense than I appear to have this morning. >In a message dated 6/9/2001 10:31:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> Exactly ... and the softening can be obvious with the Nikonscan >> version of ICE. > >The root of the problem with NikonScan is that there are ragged >edges around dust spots after applying the ICE correction using >the infrared channel. The ICE algorithm applies a smoothing >filter over the whole image to smooth out these ragged edges >around dust spots, while VueScan only does the smoothing in >the immediate vicinity of the dust spots. > >> it seems to me someone complained >> about Vuescan's "clean" function again softening in early versions of >> v.7. I believe Ed admitted as much and promised a fix. > >I fixed this quite a while ago. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
Portfolio is not free. If you into extensive archiving, viewing, cataloging, updating, etc, Portfolio is suburb, with it keywords, text content search, audio/video search and playback, but at about $100 a throw, it is not a casual utility. Many Custom labs (like Dale) now provide viewing, slide-show, software which is included on the CDs of the pictures they scan for you, such as Picture CDs. This software can be used by copying it onto your own custom CDs, and versions for most platforms are included. I don't know of any software that doesn't involve an "Install" for PCs. Or anything that is free, but there are some shareware packages that are platform specific. What the original poster wished for was a method of creating a "gallery" containing thumbnails of the images contained on the CD. The recipient of the CD would then open the gallery, click on a thumbnail which would "point" (open) the image he selected. Like the custom lab software. You can also make your own hypertext document which points to images. Like a catalog. Think about that. >But you need to pay for Portfolio to be able to make the portfolio that the >free viewer shows. > >Maris > >- Original Message - >From: "Richard N. Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 11:22 AM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software > > >| Check out Extensis Portfolio. Cross platform, all formats, >| slideshows, select galleries, etc. You can place Portfolio Viewer on >| the CD, if the recipient doesn't have it. The viewer is free. You >| need to make a catalog first, place it on the CD with the images >| along with a copy of the viewer. http://www.extensis.com >| >| >Dear all, >| > >| >I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some >| >software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly >from >| >the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package >that >| >I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? >| > >| >Bob Turner >| >Dundee, Scotland, U.K. >| >Website : www.bawbee.co.uk >|
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
Check out Extensis Portfolio. Cross platform, all formats, slideshows, select galleries, etc. You can place Portfolio Viewer on the CD, if the recipient doesn't have it. The viewer is free. You need to make a catalog first, place it on the CD with the images along with a copy of the viewer. http://www.extensis.com >Dear all, > >I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some >software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly from >the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package that >I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? > >Bob Turner >Dundee, Scotland, U.K. >Website : www.bawbee.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent, low res scans
Well, you have identified two of them. On looking at the post header, which reads: From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a few things, but OutLook Express which shipped bundled with Windows 95 was the most notorious violator of the MIME Standard. All this has been documented. In MS's defense, they claimed that the group that was responsible for OutLook was under "undue" time constraints, and "did not have ample time to complete the job." which they belatedly tried to fix with a series of patches. But never did, and by the time Windows 98 came out, they simply came out with a new version. If you are using Netscape 6 (and Messenger)., the above does not apply. And UMAX was notorious - -. There are two more biggies with stunted SCSI cards, both with inadequate firmware which couldn't be flash upgraded - all of which resulted in a merry-go-round of finger pointing. All of this I observed having a Mac system and not directly impacted. But my son, whose business livelihood depended on a workable Windows system, working remotely from home base was "ready to be institutionalized". >Richard N. Moyer wrote: > >>One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) >>cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies >>include "SCSI" cards which are/were not conformant with the >>standards. This is very important (conformance with the Standard), >>and goes back to the discussion about "Open" and "Control". The >>IEEE standards are long and complex, and technical, including the >>various ramifications of the SCSI Standard. Companies have often >>offered "abbreviated" SCSI (really shouldn't even use the term >>SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the standard, to cheapen >>the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. They didn't tell >>you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, who, more >>often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most of >>these "stunted" cards would connect only the scanner included in >>the package, and would never connect more than one device on a >>chain in accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of >>companies who did this, some might surprise you. They did what they >>thought they could get away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to >>find out "that a penny saved - - - -". The same thing has happened >>with software. Yes there are Standards at play here to, one of >>which you are using now - MIME used in e-mail. And the biggest >>abuser was - - guess who? >> >Could it be Satan? (Many know him as Bill?) > > >The above situation is what I suspected might be the case, but, I'll >give an example of the other side. My UMAX scanner came with a DTC >card, which Umax indicated would only work with their scanner. UMAX >North America's web site claimed the same thing. However, on >researching further the UMAX UK site was kind enough to mention that >with a different driver, the card would work with most SCSI products >and support up to 6 other devices, also. It took some work to >configure, since it required some jumpers be moved (I was luck that >my card had the jumpers, apparently many versions didn't and one >would have to cut or solder wires). It does work, and I'm running >my Zip drive on it, and my UMAX scanner. > >Art
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
I could be wrong, but doesn't Acer make the Polaroid scanner, and if so, would not the drivers from this machine work on Acer. Might ask Polaroid - - >List, > >I thank you all very much for your information and advice. My last two days >have been painful and difficult, and I think I really understand now what >Art meant when he wrote that "configuring them [SCSI devices] took years off >my life I'm never getting back!" I pray for USB and Firewire now. I would >like to obtain a divorce from SCSI forever. > huge snip ---
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies include "SCSI" cards which are/were not conformant with the standards. This is very important (conformance with the Standard), and goes back to the discussion about "Open" and "Control". The IEEE standards are long and complex, and technical, including the various ramifications of the SCSI Standard. Companies have often offered "abbreviated" SCSI (really shouldn't even use the term SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the standard, to cheapen the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. They didn't tell you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, who, more often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most of these "stunted" cards would connect only the scanner included in the package, and would never connect more than one device on a chain in accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of companies who did this, some might surprise you. They did what they thought they could get away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to find out "that a penny saved - - - -". The same thing has happened with software. Yes there are Standards at play here to, one of which you are using now - MIME used in e-mail. And the biggest abuser was - - guess who? >Phil wrote: > >>Hello All, >> >>Two weeks ago I e-mailed the list to ask you all about making fast, decent >>low res scans. >> >>I went ahead and purchased the Acer Scanwit 2740S. >> >>I spent the first half of this day struggling with SCSI drivers and Acer >>scanning software. I could not get the scanner to work. Finally, I called >>Acer. >> >>It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works >>on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 >>additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. >> > >This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI >card, and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would >think. WHich Mac are you using? Cut - - - - - -
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
You can get Kodak CD-R Ultima 80 (Gold/Silver 700MB, 80 Min) with InfoGuard (with printable surface) in 100 pack spindles for $59. $65 delivered. Sure others can quote equal to or better. From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mine are costing me about $1.50 (for CD-R's) to $3.50 (for RW's), >and if that triples, I'll be more prone to erasing and rewriting the >CD-RW's! I hope they've thought of that. :-) > >Best regards, and have a great Show!--Lynn > >> >>> >The shortages are blamed on three things: >>> >Soaring demands >>> >Consolidation among CD manufacturers >>> >High patent royalties >>> >>>There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies >>>geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without >>>purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at >>>bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the >>>10-cent CD-R. >>> >>>PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for >>>the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) >> >> >>*** >>Larry Berman >> >>http://BermanGraphics.com >>http://IRDreams.com >>http://ImageCompress.com >> >>*** > > > > > > >Get 250 color business cards for FREE! >http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: OT: Monitor compatability
No limitations whatsoever. Monitor cables same as on PC, on new Macs, and most monitor companies send along a DB15 adapter (DB15 to HDDB15) for earlier Macs. There are also some very interesting all digital monitor possibilities, which you can read up on the Apple website. But analog connections are there as well, which use the typical HDDB15 (3 rows of 5 pins) or Super VGA connection. If he is doing video film editing (versus slid/negative film) editing, the new Macs can also be equipped with DVD-CD_RW drives for video authoring in real time, complete with an authoring suite of software. The DVD-R drive lets you edit and save in DVD format. Of course there are the Adobe software packages such as Premiere - - The Mit Diamond Pro 920 is a great (analog CRT) monitor - The all digital monitors ( TF-LCD) will allow flicker free hi-rez video authoring in real-time. These systems eliminate the analog to digital type interface found on some so-called "digital" systems. >A stupid question no doubt but I have to be sure before I spend the money: > >I am in the PC world. My son the film student needs a Mac for film editing >so I'll get him a Power Mac G4 dual processor. Any concerns in monitor >compatibility - i.e. can we just pick the monitor and it will work or does >Apple have some proprietary mechanism limiting my choices? In case it >matters we're leaning toward the 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. > >Maris
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
"Hot Swappable means only one thing: It can be plugged/un-plugged while the computer (and the cable connection) is in operation and active. Firewire (1394) and USB have that property. SCSI does not, although you can optain special connectors that allow hot-swappability at those connections, but you need to know what you are doing. On Apple Macs, you can turn on or off all SCSI (notice I didn't say unplug or plug) devices anytime. Harddrives (external) will need to be "mounted" if turned on after the computer is booted. Execute mounting software utility. Ditto for unmounting. Scanners however will become active on SCSI connections immediately without doing anything, even if not on initially when the computer boots. Auto recognition built in Apple OS without special drivers. Hot Swappability is only built into USB and 1394 IEEE standard, not SCSI, albiet the special purchase connectors that allow such connectors without high risk of frying your SCSI PCI board or your motherboard. Or, causing massive errors and crashing of your SCSI hardrives. Can't speak for ATA, EID drives, but generally speaking most "parallel" protocol communication technology can't be hot swapped. 1394 and USB are serial technology. >If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already >booted, No problem. Just right click on MY >COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click >on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you >need to do for an Apple machine. >Regards, Ron > >- Original Message - >From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? > > >> > 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being >> > hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has >> been >> > booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices >> need >> > to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI >> controller >> > to detect it. >> >> Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to "device >manager" >> of "system properties" and click on "refresh" and the device will work. >> >> Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any >> modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The >> downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My >> USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. >> >> Steve >> >
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Dual II banding - OT
"Something to be said" (Art - below) is a mite of an understatement; and the core of probably the greatest emotions in this industry. "Control" means either strict "Standards", or monopoly, or "de facto" standard. "Open" means individualizing, customizing, "open-ended alterations", unencumbered by "Controls". The passions seem to be divided by those who favor "Controls", and those who favor "Open", with only a few who seem to want it both ways, or say so seriously. The "Control" advocates seem to be longer range thinkers, who have a strong value in predictability, and planning. Also strong feeling about the notion of profitability. The "Open" advocates seem to favor "freedom" (in a product/market sense), and strongly believe that growth and innovation is greater this way than with the "Control" people's way. They also seem to be less aware of, or concerned with profits, and are more willing to invest their energies based on passion rather than some assurances of payoff. "Standards" are an anathema. There is no doubt that the entire computer industry started with "Open" people. There is no doubt that the entire industry is moving (has moved) to "Control". And, There is no doubt (IMO), as the bulk of the industry moves into a commodity mode, that only the "Control" people will survive. The reasons are alluded to by Art (below), that fragmentation, lack of conformance, lack of standards, will ultimately pull everything down. And result in marketplace confusion. With regard to innovation, IMO the best situation, with regard to innovation, and profitability is that of what is called an Oligopoly, or a "shared" monopoly where there are strict standards, controls, and proprietary software/hardware but the market is split by two major entities, who compete directly or indirectly. In this situation there are sufficient profits to support innovation, yet standards - de facto or real - to prevent sprawl and confusion. A situation we really have with Apple and Microsoft eventhough Apple has only 5% of the world market. An interesting leverage, to say the least. All the subsegments will migrate to the same ultimate situation: Oligopoly. Not too bad an outcome, IMO. But I certainly wouldn't invest in the "Open" products. Anybody want to continue this please do it direct. >Sadly, I suspect you are right about each PC being its own DNA code >(to paraphrase), and we all know what percentage of success doctors >run. > >It is obvious to most of us who use the equipment that this system >of everyone writing their own software, changing libraries, and >confounding hardware and firmware codes, and parameters, isn't >making life any easier. As much as I used to complain about limited >market options (and therefore large costs) for Amiga peripherals and >software (and I suppose this is also true of Apple) there is >something to be said for a controlled environment, especially if the >software is going to be close-coded. > > >Seems to me, something is going to have to give eventually, or the >frustration levels, not only of users, but even of manufacturers and >service providers, is going to become unbearable. > >Art > > >Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: > >>Hi >> I too have Minolta Dual II scanner. Before buying, I was really >>confident about this model but not now. >>My scanner gives "Holder not set properly" error and stops scanning until >>you reinstall the software or reboot the PC(I got this within 2 weeks of its >>purchase). >>I sent the scanner to Minolta for repairing. Minolta said it is not able to >>reproduce the problem and returned it back. It was just waste of >>shipping charges and cell-phone-minutes (I waited a lot >>to speak to Minolta support on their 1-800 number). >> >>I do not blame Minolta for this because, this problem may happen only on my >>PC.(As a software guy I have experienced such cases) >>The software/hardware companies have really complicated the world with thier >>own standards; it is not surprising if each PC has its own unique >>finger print. >> >>Thanks >>Ramesh >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Vladislav Jurco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 3:05 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Minolta Dual II banding >> >> >>>ART wrote >> >> >>>Obviously, this is disconcerting. One thing I am wondering about, >>>without trying to make excuses (I have been suggesting this model to >>>people based upon the reports I have heard until recently)... what is >>>the voltage your part of the world.. >> >> >>>.Did your dealer indicate the defect you experienced is a common >> >>problem? >> >>> Could it be your home voltage is too high relative to "normal"? Since >>>it is USB poorly regulated computer power supplies could also be at >>>fault, but I''m mainly thinking of the power supply of the unit itself. >> >> >>Hi Art >>Central Europe - 220 V/50 cycles. >>My dealer only sells (I-shop). Local Minolta peop
Re: filmscanners: Size of scan files
More information in the higher ISO film. LZW is a near lossless compression. With the lower ISO film, you had less information. And, not necessarily grain information in the 800 film, you could well have greater gamut/saturation, greater light latitude in the 800 film. The Fuji 800 films are now pretty darned good on grain size. That's why you used the higher speed film, right? To get that information. Compression squeezes out redundant information. If you have valid "different" bit data in adjacent pixel locations, a compression scheme can't device a method of recreating that unique difference on expansion. Unless you tell it to ignore a certain level of difference, such as in JPEG. LZW won't let you do that. This is not a case of "bad" compression. Bad compression is where the algorithm assumes that - say - five pixels are the same, when they really aren't. Then, on expansion, these five pixels show up as the same. That is how you get smaller file sizes. You loose information. >I was just going through the files on the computer to see what I could >easily archive to CDR and noticed a huge difference in file sizes. I have >some full frame scans from Fuji 800 print film that occupy 30MB as 8bit LZW >TIFF files, yet I am going through Provia 100F scans at the moment which >start out at 36MB 16bit from Vuescan and end up at about 15MB in 8bit. >Logically you might expect this from halving the number of bits, but bear in >mind that my LS30 only produces 10 bits per channel. :) It looks like the >excessive grain of the fast film compresses very poorly, while the almost >non-existent grain of Provia 100F compresses very well. This also makes >sense, but I just hadn't noticed before now how huge the difference could >be. > >Rob > >PS Yes I know about things like run length compression and why it doesn't >work very well when there is a lot of detail or noise. :)
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
You definitely can reset the crop outline in Photoshop. Or alter it. Easily. In contrast with PSP, or some other programs, what you do in PS is: 1 Use Marquee tool to draw box outline. It can also be a circle, etc. 2.To add to the box, hold shift key down (don't have to) and redraw box, or just redraw the box. Curser defaults to "+", so the default is to add to the box. If you want to subtract in any way from the box, hold shift and Option key down (at least on the Mac). Box will redraw to smaller box. If you hold down just the Option key when redrawing the marquee outline, the curser shows a "-" (minus), meaning that wnen you crop, the contents of that outline will be deleted from the image, leaving you with a "frame" section of the image. Option/Shift gets you a smaller box; the curser contains neither a "+", or "-". 3. Alternately, to resize the marquee outline arbitrarily, any side, execute "transform selection" from the Select Menu. You have other choices as well to modify the marquee outline, such precise grow/shrink. 4. After selecting "Transform Selection", you have handles at corners to rotate, pull/push, you can grab any side to pull/push, and in general do anything you want to modify the marquee outline. Extremely userful when attempting to "level" an image with the horizon. When done, push enter 5. And, you can go back to any stage at any time to redo (if not saved and reopened) by looking over the "history".. (That is something I would like PS to incorporate - saved history - but it would significantly increase the size of the file) Nope. Photoshop didn't leave anything out. And you can do anything of the above in 8 or 16 bit mode, plus use the marquee outlines in a variety of other ways, such as have more than one marquee; e.g. one box inside the other - for a cutout frame, for example, Or two independent marquees. Or the marquee outline can become a mask, which can be saved. On and on. >From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I wish Photoshop had a crop tool like the one in PSP - the problem with >the normal rectangular selection is that you can't drag the sides once >you've >placed it. That means you have to guess the starting corner very well or >you'll >lose some image when you crop. In PSP you can roughly set the crop >outline, then zoom to 1:1 to adjust it. PSP won't edit in 16bit mode >however. :( >The behaviour of the PSP crop tool is *exactly* how the Vuescan crop >outline should work - it nearly does, but not as predictably. > >Rob
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
If you (John Brownlow below) could talk in terms of digital imaging terms, maybe I could understand precisely what you are talking about. The word "tone" means almost anything, depending on the background of the individual. What I would like www.robgalbraith.com to post is the gamut breadth and fidelity of the DCS 760. Tone to me is gamut accuracy (meaning chroma and hue angle). But more than that it is the ability to accurately capture "chromas" and "hue angles" at resolutions that match the best film recording media; i.e. Ektachrome, The gamut latitude of Ektachrome exceeds that of all negative films (the last I checked), but I don't know where this digital camera stands in that regard. And accuracy, pixel by pixel is another matter. So, what can the DSC750 do with gamut latitude. gamut accuracy? Nothing seems to be ever posted about this. Also, unless a digital "picture", or scan is shown in direct comparison with its competition (meaning film in this case - not another digital camera), one can't come to meaningful conclusions because the eye is easily seduced into thinking "that's a really great picture". There must be side by side comparisons. That is the convincing hurdle to cross. And of course, the film scan, or Ektachrome scan must be first class, so that the gamut of its image is completely captured. And this requires a pretty good understanding of scanning techniques, and color management, measurement, and control. Not a small undertaking. Since the DSC760 avoids the scanning process and the uncertainties and errors of color management in scanning, it has a leg up in that regard. Maybe. Yet to be convinced. But open to hard information. - >on 5/19/01 8:30 AM, Steve Greenbank at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> See this : >> > > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-05/2001_05_17_dcs_760.html >> >> and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M) >> > > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/dcs760_bw_portrait.jpg > >well, it's very very sharp and grain free. > >but the tonality is HIDEOUS. It looks like a grab from a video picture. Look >at the highlights on the hair. Agh. Is this progress? > >run! very fast! in the opposite direction! > >I could do substantially better with my super speed graphic, a 50 year old >lens, some APX 100 and a jug of Xtol. > >tone! tone! tone! > >obviously that camera can do a bazillion wunnerful things but film has a few >tricks up its sleeve yet methinks. >-- >John Brownlow > >http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Profiling negative films
>In a message dated 4/25/2001 0:08:19 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> Which isn't to say Ed has a few issues to work out. Ed may have more to >> say, but I believe his evaluation of Q60 target results only in a >> matrix-type profile, which, generally is a simplification of a device >> profile. > >As long as the sensor is linear, there's nothing that can even >theoretically be more accurate than a 3x3 matrix transform. This >is what VueScan uses. Not withstanding previous comments regarding what should be expected in VS, it might be useful for you to post an example of your 3X3 matrix transform "simulation" of a scanner LUT profile, and we will determine with ICC profile software the degree of compliance with the true LUT based scanner profile. I haven't seen yet a scanner LUT based profile that looks like a matrix developed profile. So, this begs the question regarding an assumption of linearity - . > >Only when there are nonlinearities, such as with inks on paper, >do you need more than 3x3 matrix transforms. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
>- Original Message - >From: Bob Shomler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:28 PM >Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB" > > >> >> Vuescan has an option to tag files with the selected color space profile >(except for Device RGB, which according to the help file "doesn't embed any >ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files..."). The embedded profile is >recognized by Photoshop (at least it is in my config). ProPhoto RGB is one >of the color spaces Vuescan offers for file output. >> >> -- >> Bob Shomler >> http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm > >What color space does Photoshop (6) open a file tagged ProPhoto RGB into? ProPhotoRGB. You have the choice to 1) preserve the tag: leave it alone, as is, 2) convert it to working space, 3) convert to another space. You can set the default to any of above. Most people set it to 1. >Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
This is rapidly treading way off topic. Into a discussion of what is copywritable and what is not. The bottom line is "The PhotoCDÝ" system, all the profiles, software, etc. in its entirely - is not free to the public. And, no matter what some "knockoff" software vendors may be doing, or what they would like you to believe they are doing, there is no way way that "I can cut my own Photo CD disk", that conform to the PCD standard. Without paying Kodak something. Relaxing (by Kodak) does not translate into "freedom to". Understanding what the PCD packet is does not constitute "freedom" and "ability" to duplicate what the fee paying licensee service providers now do. It ain't the same, no matter how you dress it up with words. Nobody has come forth to lucidly explain what can and can't be done by wannabe software vendors, or exactly what "critical" items Kodak has decided to protect, so that wannabe PCD users will not have the ability to undermine the licensees. Of course, all of this implicitly assumes that people abide by the laws. If not, all bets are off. If you develop a profile that does something special with "white light", I see no reason why you shouldn't copyright that development, as intellectual property. We are not talking about simplistic filter, although having spent a whole career in a large technical company with thorny technology issues, I would indicate to you that if you developed a unique filter, using a special material substance, you have the perfect right to patent that filter, citing the "unique and unexpected attributes" of such an item. Your darn right Kodak can copyright "that space". Dick >Richard, > >From my reading of info on Vuescan, it does indeed use the PCD >colorspace, and I don't think any violation of anything is >occurring. The color space of PCD could easily include all of the >film types you speak of, regardless of a bias (filter) used during >the scanning process. Further, Kodak does use a universal "filter" >for many of the films, and often labs only use that >filter/calibration, unless specifically asked otherwise. But these >do not determine color space, they determine interpretation of the >color values within the image. > >Regarding ownership of the PCD color space, it would be a bit like >saying Kodak owns the rights to the proper calibration to filter out >the dye base colors on one of their print films, or better yet, that >they own the color red, for instance. Since all color spaces are a >subset of white light, maybe I'll patent white light and claim >ownership of all of them. > >You are wrong about the Kodak Scanner situation as well (they can be >bought outright), and about access to programs that write to PCD >format. > >What is proprietary is not the scanning process, but the software >and algorithms which create the file packet and the disk formatting. > >Art
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
> > When you say "all the PCD profiles", wouldn't Ed simply be using the >most appropriate one. And, wouldn't this one offer a standard model >for mathematically converting to & from??? They are all different: pcd4050e.pf for E6 pcd4050k.pf for K-14 pcdcnycc.pf for color negative pcdekycc.pf for universal E6 pcdkoycc.pf for universal K-14 I can't tell you which one is used where. I have seen both the "pcd4050e and k" come up. All are Kodak device profiles, and have the ".pf" extension. And, all of them contain text detailing their *Copyright* information. The PhotoCD extension, when opening a PhotoCD file uses the trademark notation, such as IMG0001.PCDÝ . note the "Ý" after the PCD extension. > > 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters > > the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting > > image - you never know how much distortion > > has been introduced from "real" values. > > After looking into it only a little bit, I came away believing PCD >RGB is sufficiently large and well defined to be used as an >intermediate space. Vuescan does tag the images it exports in a >variety of working spaces (including ProPhoto and Ektaspace), the only >offering it doesn't tag is "device RGB" ... and it should be easy to >see if it is anything remotely resembling sRGB. I'm quite curious ... >I would ask VS for an sRGB image, and Ektaspace image, and the "device >RGB" image. Depending on which resembled which, as you assigned the >working space to dRGB with PS6, it should be obvious. Can't use PCD as a space. It is all device specific, the devices being Kodak's proprietary authoring scanners, such as the "Filmscanner 200", a 16 bit scanner, probably leased (but not owned) by the service provider and (probably) included with the license contract. >shAf :o) Yes it is large. It will encompass Ekta Space (almost), which is the definition of E6 Ektachrome media, and thus E6 gamut.
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
I guess you will have to ask him exactly what he is using. The discussion was about PhotoCD embedded profiles. Not standard spaces, such as AdobeRGB. The "Transforms" you can download from Kodak - ASFICT are profiles, used to open files formatted in PhotoCD format. For opening files only. But you cannot open an image which is tagged in ColorMatchRGB, or AdobeRGB (say - scanned with VS and selecting one of these spaces), and then convert the *embedded* profile to PhotoCD profile, and then save to PhotoCD format. Even PictureCD. Such that when you open the file again, the profile (as denoted in Photoshop window - at bottom) will say "pcdcnycc"," pcdekycc", "pcd4050e", ", pcd4050k", or about 4 others that start with "pcd-". These are the Kodak PhotoCD profiles that are invoked when you open a PhotoCD file on a disk provided by a licensed service provider. These files, by definition of the PhotoCD format, come in at least six resolutions, depending on whether or not the file is "Pro", "Master", "Picture" - - . But at no time does the format permit only one saved file - as was implied by another poster. And, you can't even do this unless you are licensed, and are provided authoring software included in the license from Kodak. As mentioned before, the CLUT definitions are proprietary. And, you can't open a file into "photoCD space", You cannot load any of the profiles mentioned above as a working "space". If Ed is "doing this" - somehow - he is not doing this without Kodak's permission, unless he is licensed and has obtained proprietary authoring software. But even then, Kodak would take a dim view of anybody mucking around with their technology, that they invested so heavily into. They would have to insist that all licensees conform to standards agreed upon in the licence contract. > >I recall a long time back he said he was deriving some part of his >film type correction curves or matrix data from film type data from >Kodak for PhotoCDs. > >>9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, >>and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much >>distortion has been introduced from "real" values. The image comes to >>you as untagged. If you apply a profile in VS, then the image should >>come to you as "Tagged", and you should see that (ICC profile) in >>Photoshop. Without this requirement, or data trail, you are in never >>never land regarding the fidelity of the original image. > >Vuescan has an option to tag files with the selected color space >profile (except for Device RGB, which according to the help file >"doesn't embed any ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files..."). >The embedded profile is recognized by Photoshop (at least it is in >my config). ProPhoto RGB is one of the color spaces Vuescan offers >for file output. > >-- >Bob Shomler >http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: PhotoCD format
There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to PhotoCD foramt. If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news to me. I think what you are trying to tell me is that I can cut my own Photo CDs. Right? Including the Master or Pro PhotoCD? Go to any graphic program - at least on the Mac side. None offer WRITING to the Photo CD format, OR embedding PhotoCD profiles. Check Photoshop, for example. In the example (URL) mentioned, where does it say you can write PhotoCD format? I can't download this program. PC only. Try it, and see what happens. Plus, I know of custom labs who are paying the royalty/licensing fees for using it. They get good money to write to this format. Nobody else can use it, unless they license . Again, >This was discussed about a year ago. > >There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can >convert to the proprietary PhotoCD format: >http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html > >Larry > >>There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and >>VS using PhotoCD "space". >> >>1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile >>to profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I >>have about 8 of them in my ColorSync folder. >> >>2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, and >>any use thereof would require a license. > > >*** >Larry Berman > >http://BermanGraphics.com >http://IRDreams.com >http://ImageCompress.com > >***
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"
There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS using PhotoCD "space". 1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile to profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I have about 8 of them in my ColorSync folder. 2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, and any use thereof would require a license. 3. If you examine each PhotoCD ICC profile, you will see a number of CLUT listing, and the sources are labeled "secret". That word. Each 16 bit profile has about 8 listings, all "secret" - - or proprietary. This is NOT the case if you examine Kodak's ProPhotoRGB space - for example. 4. You can open a PhotoCD - or a PictureCD using Kodak's embedded profiles, or can use one of the other Kodak CD profiles in your ICC profile bank, but you cannot save to PhotoCD, meaning you cannot embed (or format) Kodak's space. 5. If VS uses PhotoCD, what is he (Ed) using for tables, if the CLUTS are proprietary? And anyway, what good does it do in this case? I really wonder if this is fact that he is "assuming a space", and he thinks that space looks like a PhotoCD space. In an (off-list) correspondence with me Ed championed sRGB The sRGB profile consists of about 16 data points. That's it. A synthetic space meant for video and graphics on the web. 6. The scanner has its own RGB color response, usually evidenced by its profile. The profile merely maps the scanner's RGB data in a way consistent with the scanner capabilities, and therefore does not try to "remap" into a space either smaller or larger, or distorted, from the scanner response. Therefore what you get in Photoshop is "undistorted" RGB values, as delivered by the scanner. Most modern scanners have RGB responses far in excess of the media they scan, including E6, or Ektachrome, the media generally acknowledged to have the widest color gamut. In fact, the Nikon LS1000 has a gamut,or color response that well exceeds Ekta Space; the Imacon is way, way out there. Anyway, the scanner profile neither adds or subtracts from its intrinsic gamut. 7. If a profile is not used by VS, you have what is called "raw data", meaning as is, and not mapped. That is, if Ed isn't "remapping" in the background that you don't know about. And, even if the scanner profile is applied, that RGB will not budge from the untagged values. This is because the profile merely maps out what the scanner is doing in the first place. 8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut profiles, in either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. The are all complex. The only thing you can say is that they universally fit within Kodak ProPhotoRGB space. I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - - unless for PR reasons. 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much distortion has been introduced from "real" values. The image comes to you as untagged. If you apply a profile in VS, then the image should come to you as "Tagged", and you should see that (ICC profile) in Photoshop. Without this requirement, or data trail, you are in never never land regarding the fidelity of the original image. You might be bridging into touchy, unsafe waters by forcing out clarity on this issue - - Ed has a useful product to many on this list. And a good product to many. Better not lift the lid too much to look underneath. >Tony writes ... > >> The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, >> scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the >> production of the Crop file, munges that against >> his characterisation and the result is a scan >> with altered data values within Vuescan's working >> space (which I previously said I thought was maybe >> sRGB, but as has been pointed out it ain't, >> it's Kodak's PCD space - >> ... > > That's more comforting. For taking a raw scan, from any scanner, and >into the variety of color spaces Vuescan offers, I assume Ed is >assuming (1) a specific scanner may have the potential for delivering >a wide gamut of color ... (2) a transform from that gamut to any >internal color space can squash that gamut, and you'll never get it >back. > > That being said, and altho I trust Ed, I know little about PCD RGB, >and there seems to be little available regarding comparisons with the >common working spaces (if comparisons can be made ... some of what >I've found would imply apples and oranges). I will assume, until I >realize otherwise, VS's internal space is sufficient for 1 & 2. > >shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Adobe Elements
I wasn't aware that Mac users needed a simple, introductory graphics package. There are a ton of imaging software programs for the Mac, and many of them are Mac only. Take Graphic Converter, as but one example of Mac only imaging software. http://www.lemkesoft.com Programs to analyze gamuts, management of ICC profiles, and all sorts of color management tools are - for the most part - initially only on Mac platforms. And this is largely because Microsoft has - for the most part - neglected color management, and its implications. Their focus has been elsewhere. Adobe gets around this by programming their own color management into PS - - to boost the nascent Windows offering. I'm sure for additional programming cost. Adobe is firmly dedicated to the Mac platform; all Adobe products will become "carbonized" by late summer, meaning available to OS X, as well as OS 9.1. In addition, the new Photoshop V7. will contain features which will not be available on Windows until at least 6 months later. All of this has been revealed to the public. Incidentally, the upcoming release of Microsoft Office for (Mac) OS X will also have features not available on Windows immediately. I suspect in this case it is because of MS's upcoming release of "Windows X" which will permit "competitive" features. Not that there aren't enough features in Office already. Windows people are only beginning to become involved - as a mainstream - in image manipulation. Need something simple to start with, perhaps something simpler than Photoshop LE. But this is good, because the public in general will acquire imaging knowledge that Mac people have had for some time. Now, if we could only get repro houses in the UK educated on CM - - Suspect that Adobe's marketing research had found this, and their reason for dedicating the below to Windows only. In the entire imaging, multi-media, graphics industry, I don't feel neglected using a Mac. If you are doing CAD work in engineering, then it is a different story. But not in the above industries. >On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:08:23 -0600, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: > >>For those interested, per CNET: >> >>"Adobe recently released Photoshop Elements, a new image editor that >>combines power with simplicity into a single, low-cost graphics package. Try >>it out here: >> >>http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10077-108-75428.html >> >>Maris > >One more Windows only application... > >Macintosh users have made Adobe's reputation but they are now treated as >second class clients. I know what I'm talking about as I'm a Photoshop >power user since v.2 now working with a buggy 6.0 version... > >-- >Have a good day! > >Raymond Carles
RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or >interesting. >I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I think >you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film. Are you speaking about a >chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston films >which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and others >who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying >that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting. Type of processing, like c-41 is a type of processing (chemistry). I may have to go back and check the letters (CN) but I think this is it. There may also be another letter after the N, such as K, like CNK -4. I can look it up - have the book. You don't have to compensate for tungsten balance, but its better that you do. Dale for years asked you to identify the light source (for 5247) and filter when you sent the film in for processing. Like, "daylight", "flash", "halogen lights", and compensating filter. And, they processed the film accordingly, compensating for the color temperature of the exposure. But, most people never checked those boxes, and the slides/prints came out fine. Go figure. >If the negatives produced off these films tend to be thicker than normal as >you said or implied, at least as I understood your to be saying or >impliying, would this not make it harder to scan and make scanning the >slides easier if not better? Since you have already said that you have not >actually scanned the stuff, I am asking this sort of in terms of rhetorical >question or in search of a logical speculation rather than an empirical >answer. The thicker negative is not harder to scan. Actually holds in the negative holder better than thinner film. And yes, I scan a lot of it. Also stuffs far more easily into archive pages than store bought film strips. Because of the added rigidity.
RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
>Richard, > >Thanks for the updating of my information on the subject and for filling in >some of the holes while correcting the errors. From what you have said I >take it that the movie film is no longer used by these processors; does this >mean that they are now using standard still films which any regular C-41 lab >can process? How does the current film scan, resist scratching, etc. - if >you know. AFAIK the film industry continue to use this type of film, although it now has advanced to (in 1994) a finer-grained EXR 500T stock, 5298/7298 and "ultra-latitude" EXR 200T film, 5287/7287. All are tungsten balanced. As an incidental, since I was focused on skintone fidelity and low contrast - - when Kodak invented the "T" type crystal allowing them to go to finer grainsize, they correspondingly increased the contrast. A law of physics. So, I preferred the original non T type versions; .i.e. 5247 rather than the 5248 T type. Sorry, drifting off topic. So a great many labs (here in the US) continue to handle and process 5247/8 type film (CN). As I said, I love it - and managed to secure quantities of the 5247 version as it was phased out. But you can call Eastman and inquire about 400 foot reel purchases of current types. Dale will custom spool, so will Seattle filmworks, I am assuming that the same ruggedness is built into the current versions, aka 5298 et al. All because of the need for high speed processing, and the obvious huge economic penalty imposed if a re-shoot of a scene had to be made because of a lab imposed scratch. Can't speak for scan ability, but would assume the same. This type of film must be handled by Dale, or Seattle. A few local labs will handle it, but they don't like to because of set-up costs and the protective backing. Dale prices development/processing, etc. same as regular C-41, etc. types. So does Seattle.
Re: filmscanners: Colormatch RGB
FYI the following is a quote by Bruce Fraser to me regarding an off-list discussion on gamuts - ColorMatchRGB - - sRGB - - : Per your (Tony Sleep ) comment below on suitability of ColorMatchRGB for outputting to print: At 11:04 AM -0700 3/12/01, Bruce Fraser wrote: >My results have been reviewed and confirmed by many leading color >geeks, inlcuding Andrew Rodney and CD Tobie on the civilian side, and >Michael Stokes, the original developer of sRGB, on the other side. I >don't know of anyone other than yourself who claims that sRGB contains all, >or even most, of the printable colors of the Epson 1270 or any other >ink-based device. Michael Stokes himself has freely admitted that >sRGB is not a good match to printed output -- he never meant it to be. PS. I never claimed (it was someone else on another list) that sRGB was good for outputting to print - - . There are good reasons why ColorMatchRGB is ideal for repro houses (and sRGB is not) and print - which if you are interested contact me off list. Now, if the print industry in UK started to use ICC/ICM colormanagement - - > >However if you are loading a Colormatch-tagged scan into working >space without doing a conversion, then any amount of weird stuff may happen. >What happens if you set PS to use Colormatch? > >Colourmatch is not much wider than sRGB, but AIUI is the best fit for >conversion to CMYK for repro, which is why I use it. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
You are talking about Eastman 4247, 5248: Not aware that 3M used Eastman 5347, 5248 - both ISO 100 tungsten balanced movie films, which is CN processed (I think). 3M had their own manufacture. But Seattle Film works does process 5247/48, as well as a number of labs throughout the country - not necessarily movie film labs, including Dale, in Florida. Still do. At one time these labs bought tail-ends, spooled it, and sold it - or almost gave it away. But, as far as I know it was *always* referred to as Eastman 424X. It does have a protective backing which needs to be stripped via processing, and no minilabs can handle it. You got back slides (by contact duping - which was the movie film if used as such), negatives (much heavier filmbase than store bought film - 6 or 10 mils, I think), and pictures. You can also get PictureCD scans, which are PhotoCD format, cost about $7 extra per 36 roll, and give you 16-bit RGB and LAB image files. Neighborhood chemical film labs do have trouble with E524X because they don't have custom settings for prints, and because E524X was produced in lots, and then qualified by lot number by the movie studios. So, if varied slightly, defeating picture making machines which operated on fixed profiles. Plus the backing issue. You bought virgin 400 foot (refrigerated) rolls directly from Eastman (Not Kodak - - Eastman is exclusively film industry oriented, and separate from Kodak operations). And custom spooled, keeping rolls and spools refrigerated (or frozen) similar to and consistent with handling of professional films. It has outstanding archievability. The (scanning) profiling for 5247 (if you do scanning yourself) is absolutely neutral in my experience, meaning very little needs to be done via scanning, or within Photoshop to get outstanding prints from Eastman 524X film. Both films are not manufactured anymore, so filmlabs have gone offshore for their house film. I use a lot of it, and have a lot of reels frozen (30F) for future use. IMO, compared to the Portra VC/NC (400) films, and even compared to Fuji NPH 400 professional, Fuji NHG II 800, these Eastman (524X) movie films give outstanding results - because they were/are unsurpassed IMO on skintone fidelity (closeups of actresses faces on movie sets drove the design of the film); skintones that nearly eliminated the contrast "fall-ofF" so common with today's "punch" "bounce" films. Contrast is what amplifies facial wrinkles, "crows feet", etc. 534X is what I call extremely low contrast combined with excellent film light latitude. >Aren't they the ones who bought 35mm movie film tails, respooled the 35mm >movie film ends into canisters of 24 and 36 exposures, and then resold the >35mm canisters to the public via the mail. The net result was that you had >to use them for processing because no other knowledgeable lab would >knowingly process the film because it has a backing that would come off in >their processors and was damn near impossible to clean off. The film had to >be processed by cinema labs who had special lab machinery to strip the >backing off the film prior to processing. > >If I remember correctly, they would send you back prints and slides from the >same role. I do not recall that they would send back negatives. They were >also known for being one of the first to send the images back via the >internet if requested and put them on CDs. > >If I am correct, the movie film that you would get back in the form of >transparencies would have had a hardened emulsion so as to resist scratching >which might come from its original usage in movie projectors at commercial >movie houses. I somehow think you will have a hard time discovering a >canned profile for this film and will have to either produce such a profile >yourself or have a custom one made. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:13 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning > > >Mark: Re: 3M film. > >According to the people at Photo Works (used to be Seattle Film Works) >their >negative color film is made by 3M. I have used them for some time with very >good processing results. (The are one of the US houses that develops and >prints film and if you wish will return a roll with the negatives and >prints.) After I bought VueScan, I asked the company so I could match >their >film to the VueScan profiles. I found out that the film was 3M, and since I >also receive slides from them, I found that their slide film is made by >Imation. > >Gordon > >"Mark T." wrote: > > > I didn't think 3M were still in the 35mm film business. > > > > MT > > > >
Re: filmscanners: SCSI to 1394/fire wire?
Yes there are. This is but one example of a (Mac) PCI slot card which features SCSI (to 40MBytes/s) and 1394 (up to 400MBits/s, or 50 MBytes/s) so you can connect either a Firewire (1394) scanner - like the new Nikon LS4000, or your older SCSI scanner. Or both! http://www.APStech.com/prod/item.cfm?cat=10&item=1167 This particular card is rather interesting because it also supports Ultra wide SCSI drives, Edit DV, and RAID. There are others, including a 1394 to SCSI connector. As far as I know there are no connectors which convert SCSI (in) to 1394 (out). But there is the reverse. You would think that Nikon might want to build such as device, however. USB is currently too slow, in its current ramification. USB2 will be faster. Firewire is currently 400 MBits/S, will go to 800 MBits/S 2001, and >1GHz the year after. So you can see why video/media hardware companies are moving this way. But a card like that above places a lot of versatility on your computer. >About to buy a new PC, I am wondering if there is an adapter to connect my >Nikon LS2000 SCSI (and flatbed) to a 1394 port. > >I am currently using an Adaptec 1940 AU SCSI card. > >I have contacted Adaptec and am waiting for an answer. > >May be some other manufacturers out there - which are hiding from my web >searches? > >(Note : Adaptec USBXchange would be way too slow.) > >Thanks, > >Francoise Frigola > >Fine Art Gallery, sculpture aepsoriginal giclee prints: >http://www.pe.net/~franou/index.html
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Try the web search: http://www.google.com Then enter Hanimex Rondex slide You will get a number of hits. Not necessarily in the UK, such projector hits such as: http://zbiz.net/collectibles/listings/154.html and http://www.ozsydney.com/collectables/listings/165.html ($75 US?, Aus?) plus a bunch of magazines: http://abccamera.hypermart.net/clear.htm You can also do a Sherlock search (if on a Mac) and get a bunch of hits. As a matter of fact, I happen to use the Bell & Howell cube system, which I still think is the best archiving system (45 slides per cube). However this system has been out of production for eons. Nevertheless, it (projector) and magazines are actively sold on eBay; for instance the 18 cube drawer type magazines go for $40 - $50 each! But using a search, I found a used equipment dealer in New Mexico who had 15 drawer type magazines (each holding 16 cubes, or 720 slides in a space smaller than a circular magazine holding 120 slides - new) willing to sell them for $14 each. So it pays to search around on the net. It really doesn't matter where in the world you are - - There are also a bunch of repair locations - - Dick >Dear Arthur, > >I've just experienced yet another photographic archiving >lesson, this time rather a painful one, with a lesson for >all of us about dependence on current technology. > >I have thousands of colour slides, taken from approx >1970-1991, and about 7800 of these are stored in Hanimex >Rondex 120-slide round magazines. I have 'temporarily >archived' about 6yrs-worth by filming them onto VHS tape, >with commentary, using a Video8 camcorder as camera on >small, bright projected images. I'm quite happy with these >results - they're mostly just holiday snaps, and I can >always filmscan the masterpieces if I want to. > >On trying to continue the process, I now discover my Hanimex >slide projector has died, and such machines and their >magazines are extinct in the UK outside museums. > >So, unless I can (a) repair the projector, I'm faced with >(b) transferring them to another projection system, handling >them one at a time whatever I do (I also have a 1-slide-at-a >time projector, which would be cheapest), (c) trying to find >a second-hand projector at reasonable cost, or (d) (the >correct solution for filmscanning folk), scanning the lot >with my Scanwit. > >I estimate (d) will take a year's nearly full-time work, so >I'll take the projector to bits first. > >At least our *digital* images will last a long time and are >transferrable onwards in principle. When VHS becomes >seriously endangered (not far ahead, I think), I'll invest >in two cheap VCRs and a current portable TV, and leave them >unused, so I can sit in my bathchair in future looking at my >holiday snaps & analogue home videotapes. > >I'm not optimistic about my children being able in future to >derive the same pleasure from my efforts that I get from my >parents' B&W snapshots from my own childhood. > >Regards, > >Alan T > >- Original Message - >From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 10:40 AM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: List Insanity
Tony - the consensus of some other list managers is that it is the Naked Wife virus, which has taken a variety of servers down to their knees, and hobbled others. Bringing them back up has resulted in doubling, or more. I really don't know, just what I hear. PC only. If you haven't heard about this, you should check it out. In any event, if you get an embedded or attached "Naked Wife" (I am guessing it is an .exe file) head for the hills, rather than open it. >Thanks to those list members who mailed me and asked why the listserver is >sending out old msgs, duplicate msgs etc. I am afraid I haven't a clue, my >control of the list is these days limited to a few emailed commands as it is >run by my ISP. But I am on a couple of other lists, hosted elsewhere, which >have delivered duplicates, and have also received some private email twice. >Something is plainly very screwed up somewhere. > >I was just away for 4days on a shoot, and trying to catch up with what is >happening here. Meanwhile, I am getting around 800 bounce msgs PER DAY from >list members who have either >(a)set up some forwarding arrangement which doesn't work - usually because the >address they are forwarding to will not accept the list mails >(b)lost interest, closed email accounts, wandered off >(c)signed up to the list or digest, but fail to clear their POP mailbox > >I spent 4hrs trying to trace and unsubscribe offending addresses yesterday and >Sunday, and am getting very fed up with it. There are certain people who keep >on allowing their mbx to overflow, and promptly resubscribe. I intend banning >these addresses in future as they waste so much of my time, so if you want to >stay on the list PLEASE MAINTAIN YOUR POP ACCOUNTS PROPERLY. > >And if you don't, please unsubscribe using the method outlined below:- > >Unsubscribing from the filmscanners list or digest. >--- > >Send an email to:- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with > Unsubscribe filmscanners emailaddress >in the message body. > >To unsubscribe the digest, substitute filmscanners-digest for filmscanners in >the above command, ie > Unsubscribe filmscanners-digest emailaddress > >Emailaddress is optional, but allows you to unsubscribe an address which is >different to the one you are sending from. This is useful if you are using >forwarding or aliasing to an address which is different to the one you >subscribed from. > > > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons
RE: filmscanners: OT (was: Anyone using Win2K? )
> >> Somebody's got to keep the giants honest--Microsoft, Adobe, AOL, the whole >> lot of them--and the best candidates for that are the small developers, >> Art's "Genius Companies." > >They are gnats on the horizon. If they show the slightest sign of being a >threat, they are bought out and either thrown into a black hole or >encorporated into the existing product lines. > >Frank Paris >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 As brought out in the trial - - This is called: "Embrace, Modify, then Abandon". Otherwise known as a dead end for competing technology.
Re: filmscanners: Clarity! Dual Monitor Hell (Heaven!)
It is: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11242.html?cprose=139 >Go to www.creativepro.com and do a search for "Out of Gamut:" or >"Bruce Fraser", you will find a series of articles on Photoshop and >calibration. > >Photoshop ships with a software monitor calibrator which is better >than nothing, but you can't beat a hardware colorimeter. Especially >when you are trying to get two displays to look the same. > >Bill > >>Embedding profiles in your images is a topic in and of itself - I would you >>suggest you first read Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop book first (I >>don't know if the book is out for 6 yet or not).
Re: re[2]: filmscanners: OT (slightly): Epson 640U
This has been worked to death by the experts. See Bruce Fraser, or go directly to J Homes, who created the EktaSpace gamut in the first place - so that there was a wide enough space to completely envelop E6 - judiciously, meaning that "no levels out of the 256 are wasted". Or, if you choose, obtain software such as ColorThink (CHROMix.com site) or ICCTools.com site for gamut analysis profile viewing software, which will illustrate in 3 dimensional views the nature of these profiles. Then there is this type of data: Percent of Visible Spectrum included Kodak Prophoto 27.94% Wide Gamut RGB 22.94% Ekta Space (J. Homes)20.65% Adobe RGB 1998 18.04% sRGB 14.47% Epson 1270 "Standard"13.39% Radius ColorMatchRGB custom 12.78% 1270 PQP 2/21/01 custom 10.72% Epson 1270 Premium Glossy (std9.63% Epson1520 PQPP custom (Steve Upton) 8.24% EuroscaleCoated.icc 8.05% Epson 1270 Olmec Glossy (Ian Lyons) 7.95% CS ColorMatch 3.01 SWOP Sf C 7.63% USSheetfedCoated.icc 7.27% The Ekta Space was developed by J. Homes using a Q60 Target of and for Ektachrome obtained from Kodak, but you can go to the Chromix site (profilecenter.com) and look into it. Plus there is a wealth of correspondence on this particular subject. These people (color scientists, and others who publish) consider sRGB an inferior space, sort of like "viewing your image through a keyhole - - ". Meaning small space. After doing quite a bit of my own analysis using a multitude of gamut spaces represented by targets and ICC profiles, I agree. It is true that sRGB is lacking in the blue/green sector, particularly at low luminosity values. But you can easily get chroma levels off an Ektachrome slide that blow outside the sRGB confine. Which is why color expert Homes created Ekta Space in the first place. Negative film and E6 Ektachrome are different animals. >In a message dated 3/3/2001 5:46:16 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >writes: > >> If you use Ektachrome E6, you will obtain saturated colors far >> exceeding the gamut of sRGB. > >No, this just isn't true. Take a look at the data for the Q60 and >you'll see that there's very little out of gamut, mostly highly >saturated yellows and cyans that don't occur in most people's >pictures. There's virtually nothing out of gamut when scanning >negatives because of the orange mask. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: re[2]: filmscanners: OT (slightly): Epson 640U
If you use Ektachrome E6, you will obtain saturated colors far exceeding the gamut of sRGB. For this media, you should use a wider color space such as Ekta Space which encompasses (just barely) the gamut of E6. In addition, you should not save these files using the sRGB profile, or they will be clipped, meaning that space compression attributes such as greyscale distortions, and lost tonality - meaning loss of saturation - will take place irreversibly. Unless you rescan. If you are concerned that you haven't captured saturated colors in the first place, you can drop your scanned slide image file (making sure it is not scanned into sRGB onto (drag and drop) Chromix's ColorThink gamut analysis software (Mac only). This will then give you (in any coordinate system you want L.a.b., xyz, luv, etc.) the gamut latitude of your photograph image and compare that gamut with gamuts of sRGB, EktaSpace, AdobeRGB, or KodakProRGB. The reason these (gamut conversions) changes are irreversible is because the compression/expansion algorithms and transforms are not perfect and because the repsective gamuts are highly irregular three dimensional "globs". Stuffing one glob into another - or expanding one in another causes non linear distortions. sRGB matches the gamut of most "good" monitors, and was chosen as a default by Microsoft Windows, and other PC software. But it should be emphasized that this is a restricting space and it will (potentially) clip your work. Once your image is in sRGB, it cannot be "widened" to a larger space without again introducing gamut expansion artifacts, such as posterazation, and more greyscale (crossover) distortions. Think carefully about color spaces, and plan your workflow accordingly! >In a message dated 3/3/2001 1:31:55 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> This is after vuescan gets it and does a conversion from the sRGB provided >> from the scanner. Unless Ed has changed it and not noted this it the >release >> notes he only brings back the values from the scanner under sRGB. > >Yes, VueScan transfers the raw samples as linear samples >(i.e. not gamma corrected) using the same color primaries as >sRGB. If you do a scan of a Q60 calibration slide using this scanner, >you'll see that only the saturated yellows are slightly out of gamut >and some of the saturated cyans are slightly out of gamut. Since >these colors occur rarely (if ever) in real photographs, this isn't >really a problem. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: storage
Art - I'm sure you must know that Corel is broke, and is likely to be bought out by Microsoft, if MS can get over the antitrust implications. Corel must stop doing some of the things they had been doing, since these activities aren't contributing financially. Enough anyway. > >Speaking of leaders leading us astray... Corel has stopped all >production on Linux products. They will, for now, continue to sell >those they have produced, and will shortly sell their Linux >division. They claim they will spend their efforts on getting their >current products (Corel Draw, Paint, Word Perfect and the Meta >products) into more hands and working better on Macs. Then again >they also claim they'll be in the black (as opposed to a black hole, >as they currently are) by year end ;-) > >Apparently the US Dept. of Justice is looking into the MS Corel >connection for possible further violation of anti-trust legislation, >in regard to the Linux sale. > >Art
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Removing dust from digitized images: This is a quote from another poster (elsewhere - not this list, and I don't have the author since I clipped the quote) regarding the use of PS and the History Brush in PhotoShop: " - - working with a 16-bit file - 1. do your initial color space conversion (if necessary) and an initial levels/ curves adj 2. save a snapshot of current state 3. run dust and scratches (See Filters), checking the preview to make sure most of the debris is caught by the filter 4. create a snapshot of the dust and scratches state, set it to history, and revert to the previous snapshot 5. select the history tool and set it to lighten (if using transparency film) or to darken (if using neg film); if you have a palette set options so that pressure in "on" for size and "off" for opacity' set opacity to 100%; choose a soft brush The history brush should now work to remove most of the debris (setting the tool to "lighten" or "darken" limits the effect to the spots you are aiming at), but some debris will defeat the d/s filter (either it is just too much for the settings you chose or is in an area where the contrast just isn't enough for the "lighten"/ "darken" brush mode to work properly). For these occasional spots I use the rubber stamp tool, reversing the palette options so that opacity is set to "pressure" and size is set to "off." end of quote - >In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features >including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to >the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust >to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized >Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the >entire image. >Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has >shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to >clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. >If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results >are much closer. > I also polled several Imacon d >dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust >removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I >don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA >that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history >palette. Pretty neat. >All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of >sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ >David Hemingway >Polaroid Corporation
