[filmscanners] SS4000 again
I gather nobody on the list has attempted to clean the CCD of a SS4000? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Installing LS30 on XP
I've just set up my LS30 under Windows XP. Along the way I was looking at Maxwell Optics' FAQ about the topic (Maxwell are the Australian Distributors for Nikon). The link below contains a link to ASPI drivers for Adaptec SCSI cards which gives me a 404 file not found error. Does it work for anyone else? http://www.maxwell.com.au/support/faq/11448_ls2000xp_jw.html Other than this problem, the information provided on the site about installing the drivers with XP seems excellent to me. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan file size
Thomas Maugham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just scanned a negative and got the following information from VueScan: 5576 x 3669 pixels 4000 dpi 1.39 x 0.917 inch 92.1 mb. The size of the file on my hard drive is 119.885kb or about 119.9 mb. Why the discrepancy between what VueScan says the file size is versus the size on the hard drive? On my PC, an image reported by PSP as 26.5MB, is on the disk 26.56MB in NTFS. The size difference you describe is very large by comparison. There's always a difference between the real size of a file and the size on the drive due to the slack space in the clusters that make up the drive sectors. If you have a large drive (more than 32GB) formatted as one partition with an inefficient file system like FAT32, you may end up with cluster sizes of 32KB. So a file which was 1KB would take up 32KB because that's the smallest space that the drive format can address. This slack space can cause a difference between the actual size and the size on disk, but I can't see it making the 28MB difference you have, unless the drive is really badly fragmented. To keep slack space down, it's better to use a format that's designed for large drives such as NTFS. http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html Is the file size still 120MB after it is written on a CDR? I think there must be some other explanation why the size in Vuescan is reported as being so significantly differently. The only suggestions I can think of are that you are resizing the file to a larger output size, or the file you're saving is a raw file which includes a fourth infra red channel. My LS30 scans as RGB are about 27MB but are 33MB as RGBI. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] apology and more info re: About cleansing
My apologies to everyone on the list about the multiple messages - the proxy through which I was sending the messages somehow sends multiple button clicks in such a way that several copies of the message result. I don't know why this happens, it doesn't happen all the time, and unfortunately the only thing I can do about it is avoid sending messages while logged in through that proxy. :( Further to my comment about PEC12. In the USA it's possible to get special wipes which are presoaked with PEC12. As far as I know it's not possible to get them in Australia - I had to import the bottle of PEC12 I have as it was! PEC12 is very effective at removing dirt and mould, and I am also hoping that it does a good enough job of removing mould that it discourages regrowth. However - the mould eats the emulsion so bear in mind that you may end up with blank spots on your film. It's *not* the fault of the cleaner, but the effect of the mould eating the emulsion. In some cases I would wonder whether it's better to scan the image with the mould on it, because some of the emulsion at the edges of the growth may be unstable - either way it would make sens eto do a before and after scan. PEC12 can leave a residue on the surface of the film. Other than cleaning it again with more clean PEC12 I don't have any suggestions for removing it - but others who have used it more may be able to comment. I doubt the residue would be noticeable in a scan but it *may* alter the contrast slightly. Others on the list have suggested soaking in PEC12 for particularly difficult grime. I've never tried this. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon LS30 on XP
Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where I found it on Nikon's site; I did this last summer. The Nikon scan version is 3.1.2. Hi Bob, OK, the version I have installed seems to be 3.1.0. I have to say that Nikon have *greatly* improved their website and the drivers weren't too hard to find. I wno't download them just yet - not until I install XP. :) Vuescan works fine on Win2K. Thanks again, Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon LS30 on XP
Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the same config working. I use Vuescan, not Nikonscan. I did download and install the latest Nikon driver, and I downloaded ASPI. Pardon my ignorance - what version is the latest Nikon driver? Where did you fnid it - because last I went searching for it, I had to do a lot of digging. I've managed to resurrect my PC still in Win2K so I don't need to move to XP straight away. I will do so when the current project is complete (scanning pictures for a visa application) and I can afford the time to reinstall all the software. Sadly this hard drive crash killed my RAID stripe and I lost a couple of weeks' work in scanning (as well as a week's work editing and compressing video). Now I have a DVD+-RW drive and I can back up more efficiently. I'm also going to set up a backup system to my second PC over a LAN cable. The loss of the scans is a bummer, but at least I *didn't* lose all my emails, address book etc, and most importantly all my digital pics from the video camera which would have been gone forever. One of the downsides of going fully digital - no backup in the form of film!! The cheap SCSI cadr works with the LS30 in Win2K so hopefully it will still work in XP. It doesn't talk to the old HP Scanjet IIIc however, but the adaptec SCSI adapter on the motherboard of my old PC still does thankfully. Rob PS For anyone who upgrades to Nero 6 to do DVD data disks as a means to save scans - I didn't find the drop-down box at the top left corner of the Nero window an obvious way of selecting between CD and DVD disk types. I was expecting every possible disk type to be in the scrollable icon list. You can get there using the StartSmart wrapper, but I have an innate loathing of Wizards. ;) I'm still wondering why my 4X DVD-R drive is only writing at 2X - I think it's the media. PPS I was tempted to get another hard drive so the boot drive is a mirror, but decided against the expense for now. I'm annoyed enough for paynig someone else $100 to copy data off the drive; something I could have done myself. As luck would have it, the drive apparently got too hot and wanted a rest. It now has two dirty great fans sitting on top of it so I don't think it will overheat again in a hurry, but summer is almost upon me... Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Thanks
Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah, too easy. What about Kodachrome. LS-30s just love Kodachrome :) I think I'll be busy enough over the next couple of years without making the film scanning too challenging! ;) Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Think about having someone shoot some T400 CN film at your wedding. Then you can have some fun scanning and printing BW Good idea - although it looks like T400CN has been replaced by Black and White? I was also thinking of getting a bunch of disposible cameras to hand out to guests. I won't be able to afford a professional photographer. I'll have to train someone to use my video camera too! ;) John Mahany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob, take advice -- buy it now or you won't get another chance for 30 years until the kids have left home ... You mean that won't leave home until they're 30? That's a scary thought! I reckon I'll be able to convince my fiancee that we need a decent camera to help record the early years of our kids. Time will tell I suppose. ;) Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] OT: Pentax *ist D
If anyone has had any experience with the new Pentax Digital SLR, please contact me off the list. I had a look at one today, and just checked the specs. On the surface at least, it looks like the sort of thing I was hoping Pentax would make - a camera that lets me use my existing lenses, and provides about the same number of pixels as scanning film with my LS30 (about 3000x2000). Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: proposed art show
Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an idea. I think all of us could agree to one thing, and that is: what finally matters is how good the print looks. (Okay, some folks only care about web published images, so you guys can get lost--no offense.) There needs to be an art show where what we are judging is the actual prints. Some will use digital cameras, some film scanners. We get a chance to really judge the final result, the result beyond all theory, the result that we can see on paper with our own eyes! It's an interesting idea. I suspect that in a lot of cases, the details of the print (paper, printer, ink) will be more significant than the difference between a high end digital camera image and a 35mm film image. Especially if the final size of the prints are limited to say A4. Prints to larger than A4 will require scanning from 35mm at more than 2700ppi, but I suppose that's a question of categories as Yves has already suggested. Personally I wish I could figure out a way to make money from my photos so I could afford some of the gear which some other list members regularly use. Although I'd settle for a few better lenses, a better film scanner and a better printer! ;) But I'll probably have to content myself with observing people talking about their Mamiyas and Zeiss lenses and dream... Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and profiles
Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recent versions of Vuescan contain provisions for building custom ICC scanner profiles and custom ICC film profiles, using IT8 reference targets. Thanks for the info Julian! Very interesting. It would be nice to be able to make profiles for things like Provia100F. Furthermore, Vuescan is now capable of loading and using custom ICC monitor profiles. If your monitor is profiled (with Colorvision Spyder or equivalent), Vuescan's displays will be about as accurate as Photoshop's. Unfortunately I only have the manufacturer's default profile. But it's useful to know! Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 2 vuescan questions
James Gaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. I occasionally scan slides (using a Nikon IV-D) that have a good deal of orange and colors close to it, expecially orangey rust. I haven't found a way of setting the options in Vuescan to produce a scan that matches the slide closely. The problem seems to exist only when there are large areas of such color. Any suggestions? I find that with my Nikon LS30 the reds tend to oversaturate. This *seems* to be a feature of Vuescan also, I don't think it happened so readily with Nikonscan. The other colour I cannot get the scanner to reproduce is a turquoise in some shots I took at the beach a couple of years ago. It's sad because the colour in the slide is awesome, but the scanner doesn't seem to reproduce it at all. Maybe in your case the white balance is shifting the colours? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re:Nikon Coolscan LS-2000: focus issues viewscan
Ellis Vener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to help some friends out. Is it possible to physically adject the focus mechanism on an Coolscan 2000? they were given one but the focus is way off. Is the focus accurate using Nikonscan? Are the images silver based BW film? If you try to use the IR scratch removal feature on silver based BW film you may end up with a result that looks horribly out of focus. The IR feature cannot be used with silver based film, and may be problematic with Kodachrome. It should work fine with Ektachrome transparencies or dye based neg films. If the focus is also faulty with Nikonscan, there's likely to be a fault with the hardware. Another possibility is that you are expecting sharpness from the scanner which it's not capable of delivering. But it's hard to know without seeing what you're talking about. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 24bit vs more
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? That is probably how every filmscanner that you or I would use, works... The issue is the software (and possibly hardware), and how it allows you to control this...but if you can get 8 bit data, it's got to have it's setpoints set and tonal curves applied. Some scanners do the setpoints automatically in the scanner. Some use profiles to apply the tonal curves... I presume what you mean by tonal curves are curves applied to the data to correct for the behaviour of the scanner's own hardware and the behaviour of the film (ie. a film profile). Maybe I'm not understanding what set points are. I thought you meant black and white points but now I'm not sure. Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? I'm not assuming any specific interface... Another question then - do you use Vuescan? Because my understanding of the original rationale behind vuescan (which has shifted a little over time) was to get the most possible useful information out of the scan, and leave the a lot of the contrast and tonal correction to editing later. Maybe Ed has changed his rationale completely over the years, but I don't recall him ever recommending that you should do all the image tonal manipulation in Vuescan and virtually none of it in an editor afterward. OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by raw data. Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw data. Raw data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal curves applied. What do you think raw data means? I would have taken raw data to mean exactly what it says - the bytes produced by the scanner with no manipulation whatsoever, meaning you'd have to remove the neg mask, invert and do tonal correction in an editor. Perhaps my view of raw is skewed by being a programmer or using Vuescan; whose raw files are exactly as I described above. More importantly, the raw data is useless to me if I want to take advantage of the scanner's IR dust removal feature. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re:24bit vs more
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should either get raw data from the scanner, or do the setpoints/tonal curves correctly in the scanner software. Keep in mind, every time you re-do setpoints/tonal curves, you are degrading the data. It's just a fact of how setpoints/tonal curves work. What the significance of that degradation is, will vary greatly, so it may not be *that* bad...but why do things twice when you can do them right the first time? Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? Getting the *right* 24 bits can sometimes better be done with an image editing program than the scanner's interface. I understand that some scanner software is lacking, and that is where you simply should get raw data from the scanner, and learn how to do a better job of setpoints and tonal curves in PS. OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by raw data. I wouldn't ever attempt to use an editor (I don't own PS by the way) to do what Vuescan does to go from the raw scanner output from a neg to produce a positive image. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] 24bit vs more
Unfortunately I'm not one of the lucky majority who have scanners that produce data with more than 10 bits per channel. I am still stuck with my LS30. I don't know about other scanners, but I can say that difference between scanning using Vuescan at 10 bits per channel instead of Nikonscan at 8 bits per channel makes a HUGE difference in the information I can get out of film. In particular, I find that subtle shadings of similar colour (eg. flower petals) become posterised with Nikonscan while Vuescan produces smoother results. Because Vuescan doesn't have the facilities to adjust things that Nikonscan does, I always need to do a significant amount of editing later. But Vuescan turns the LS30 into a worthwhile scanner, where with Nikonscan it's VERY ordinary indeed. My point is that for some of us, getting the data into the PC at more than 8 bits per channel makes a lot of sense. I dispute the claim that if you have to do a significant amount of adjustment after scanning that you haven't done it right. It depends on the circumstances. Getting the *right* 24 bits can sometimes better be done with an image editing program than the scanner's interface. Rob (yes, I know I'm late to be wading into the discussion) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re:Canned air...
mahimahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a underwater photographer I use a small scuba tank fitted with a rubber air nozzle. pure dry filtered regular air. The scuba regulator also provides a constant pressure and it can be used in any position without freezing your film. A $3 airfill can last for months as well. Hi Chris, I'm just trying to follow how you've rigged things up wiht the regulator. Are you just using a normal reg and pointing the mouthpiece at the film before pressing the purge valve? Or have you rigged up somehting else to feed the mouthpiece flow into a nozzle? I have diving regs; maybe I could get a second hand pony tank. It's easier for me to rent a tank when I want to dive, so I haven't bought one. Rob PS What camera gear do you use underwater? I've tried SeaSea cameras, but haven't had the chance to try a Nikonos. I'm looking to get a case for my DV camera but that's moving pictures not stills. :) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: My best scanner/film combinations
Jeff Scribner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have not shot Fuji Velvia or any of Kodak's professional slides, so I can not comment on them. Velvia produces more saturated colour than Provia 100F but the grain is not quite as fine (but it is virtually invisible at 2700ppi). The density of Velvia can cause similar problems with scanning that 100F or Kodachrome do. I haven't got around to scanning most of my velvia slides. scan. I contend that the use of graduated natural density filters and I'll have to try this. As someone has mentioned, slides are easier to store and look at as well. I use 3-ring binders to hold my slides. You can do the same with negs and prints. I presume there would be companies in other countries like albox (www.albox.com.au) that produce archival storage sheets. Albox have them for slides, negs and prints so you can put combinations of them into the same folders. However, I've mainly used them for sheets to store negs and slides. It would be nice to at least put an index print in with the negs. Again when I have time, I'll rescan the T-Max and see how it goes. I've tried scanning a couple of silver based films using the LS30. Vuescan was essential because with Nikonscan the film was so dense it came up with nothing useful. But for my purposes T400CN eliminates the density problem and has amazingly fine grain. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Rescans and archiving
Harvey wrote: Fuji's Velvia chrome film is the most stable of the Fuji chrome films (significantly more stable than the rest). I think that's he only one that is more stable than Kodak Ecktachrome...But my knowledge is a few years old. Is there a relationship between stability and film speed? I'm intrigued becuse Velvia is ISO50 and Kodachrome is generally ISO64. Yes I know about K25 and K200. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: LS-2000 B/W Negatives
gandve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone find a satisfactory solution to scanning BW negatives using the LS-2000? Is there any hope that this could be made to work? It depends on the density of the negs. Try Vuescan with multiple passes. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Rescans and archiving
Harvey wrote: Don't know about the Velvia, but it is my understanding that Kodachrome's stability is due to the fact that it starts as a bw silver based film and the color is added during the processing, and is not incorporated in the original film (i.e. not color coupled). I've heard that too, although I don't understand what difference it makes when the dyes are added! (but I can see that it does) Rob
Re: filmscanners: scanning PAN-F (was: Polaroid Rebate)
Alessandro Pardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a few months later I can state that PAN-F scans a lot better, with respect to the D-Max problems, with my new Canon FS4000 (and latest Vuescan version). That says something very positive about the capabilities of the Canon. Rob
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Rescans and archiving
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to be too picky, but Ektachrome is a Kodak trademark, and Fuji therefore doesn't make any Ektachrome films. You probably would be more accurate by saying all E-6 processed films if you wish to include Fujichrome, although even the E-6 process is owned by Kodak, and Fuji calls their process CR-56 or something like that. You've pointed out yourself that Kodak E6 and Fuji CR56 can be processed in the other manufacturer's chemistry. I take your point, but for the purposes of discussion I was simply separating Kodachrome and non-Kodachrome. The vast majority of non-Kodachrome films can be processed in chemistry designed for Ektachrome. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Rescans and archiving
Les Berkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a couple rolls of Kodachrome that my father shot (Leica IIIc) when I was 3 mos old. That makes them (shudder) over fifty years old. They look like the day they came back from Kodak. (Hell to scan though.) The archival nature of Kodachrome is awesome. It's a shame that the technology is being displaced by ektachrome in that respect. However I believe the modern Ektachrome films are much more archival than earlier versions. Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Rescans and archiving
Roger wrote: At 11:26 PM +1000 12/12/01, Rob Geraghty wrote: The archival nature of Kodachrome is awesome. It's a shame that the technology is being displaced by ektachrome in that respect. However I believe the modern Ektachrome films are much more archival than earlier versions. Yes, that is true, but they still don't match the Fujichromes for longevity, at least according to Henry Wilhelm. Hi Roger - when I spoke of Ektachrome, I meant *all* ektachrome films, which includes Fuji and all other brands which use the ektachrome process. It's reassuring to know that Wilhelm says Fuji films have good longevity since almost my entire collection is fuji film. However, Fuji film simply wasn't around just post WWII, but I've seen Kodachromes that still look brilliant from QEII's coronation. I really hope that Fuji films do turn out to last a long time, but at the moment the only one we can be sure of is Kodachrome. But note I'm shooting Fuji because I like the colour and other aspects of the films. :) If I was really paranoid about longevity, I'd probably shoot kodachrome. As was mentioned before, all this depends on how well they're stored etc. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Rescans and archiving
Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Personally, I trust my film to maintain most of its integrity for many | years to come, so I'm not panicking to get everything on CD-R. Me too, I trust my color slides longevity -- I am scanning slides with near thirty years that are in perfect conditions. I have slides that are much more recent which have been attacked by mould. :( That's what I get for living in a subtropical area! I have colour negs which are completely destroyed by heat and humidity. Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
[bouncing of possibly infected attachments] Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. At some point, Microsoft will probably kick up a stink. I wish they'd never allowed VBS or any sort of scripting in email! Frankly there ought to be a class action against Microsoft for implementing such a pathetic security model. Security? What security! I have a PC that runs at least 30% slower than it could all because of Microsoft security. It's in the best interests of the ISPs to implement some sort of mail scanning, because eliminating viruses will reduce the likelihood of network storms resulting from virus propagation. In other words - getting rid of viruses at the server would help the internet be faster and more convenient. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30: High contrasts in slides cause halos!
Philip wrote: How much more shadow detail was there in the Polaroid over the LS30. I have an LS30 and I am still tempted to add the SS4000 while it is still so cheap. I would probably keep the LS30 for the ICE. There seemed to be a LOT more shadow detail in the Provia 100F slides I tried - specifically because the details in dark rocks were lost to the LS30. But it's hard to compare the scans I did on the SS4K with those on my own computer because the PC at work which has the Polaroid scanner has; 1) Windows 95 so there's no colour management 2) An uncalibrated monitor facing a window with horrid glare I had hoped that doing raw scans with Vuescan would eliminate those issues, but the exposure I ended up with was certainly not ideal. If you're keen to see comparisons anyway, please send me a private email and *if* I find the CDR which has the scans from the SS4K I'll try to make a jpeg to demonstrate. However I'm in the process of packing all my worldly goods into storage to go to Japan, so the timing isn't great. Suffice to say that in a single pass, the Polaroid seemed to pick up a lot more of the information from the slide than the LS30 could using Vuescan for 10bits per channel. Infrared cleaning is a godsend if you have damaged or dirty films. If you have nice fresh, clean film, then the SS4K will get much more data out of slides or dense film than an LS30. Since I don't have one of the more recent Nikons, I can't say how the comparison with an LS4000 would be. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan and Portra 400BW
DRP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Ed: please think about updating the Kodak negatives list in Vs! AFAIK Ed is limited by the released PhotoCD profiles from Kodak. If Kodak haven't published the profile for Portra, then Ed wouldn't be able to provide one. Rob
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30: High contrasts in slides cause halos!
Rob wrote: I would check to see if the mirror is clean and that it has not got a build up of dust or as you mention exhaled solvent covering. Someone mentioned something in the past about a mirror in the Nikon LS30/2000 as being extremely delicate and not something the user should touch. But I may be misremembering. Ralf Schmode wrote: I was mistaken. Please take a look at http://schmode.net/halos.jpg and http://schmode.net/halos2.jpg - what makes this an issue is that the second image crop was taken with the scanner being almost new, just three months in use. I presume the halos aren't on the film and you checked very carefully to be sure. To be honest I wouldn't have seen these halos if the scan had been mine, and they wouldn't be a significant enough problem for me to get upset about. The posted images look to be unadjusted output from Vuescan - by the time the levels, brightness and contrast were adjusted, I'd be surprised if the halos were visible. I've been quite happy with the LS30 once the jaggies problem was addressed by using Vuescan. From a brief comparison, the output it produces compares surprisingly well with the SS4000 for colour and sharpness, but not shadow detail. That's to be expected. But then the SS4000 cost twice as much as the LS30 at the time. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re:Ls2000/Win XP
Have been running Nikon Scan 3.1 and win ME with no problems with the LS2000. Did an installation of XP now Photoshop or stand along the scanner is not recognised nor the twain drive.. Have tried reinstall of both PS and Nikon Scan still no avail. Any hints to rectify the problem? or where do I look. I think you have to install ASPI drivers for the SCSI card. Remember that XP evolved from the NT family of products including Win2K, not from the Win9x line. Rob
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)
Brian wrote: actually polar coordinates might be more applicable in this case. It still comes back to the question of - relative to what? The orientation according to the scanner, or that displayed on the screen? Having a graphical interface with the ability to click on a point is harder to code, but very intuitive for the user. Coordinate systems are not. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available (new focus test)
Julian wrote: Maybe we should ask Ed to use complex numbers (x +iy) to represent the focus points I doubt that many folks on the list would have heard of imaginary numbers, but I could be wrong - there's a few electrical engineers out there I think! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available
Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a difference in contrast between the Nikon Scan and VueScan images, and I did not try to equalize them. But I think you can still see that the NS image is sharper, and that is because I was able to set focus on the spot in the enlargement. Part of the apparent increase in sharpness seems to be the contrast and possibly the fact that the highlights seem to be blown out in the VS scan, but there looks to me to be more fine detail in the NS version. Were you using VS 7.2.11? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scanners, DOF and focus settings (was: VueScan 7.2.11 Available)
Ralf Schmode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: after so many people stating that *all* Nikon filmscanners allegedly have that DOF problem, it is good to read from someone else who in fact *is* able to get edge-to-edge sharp scans out of a Nikon. Caveat: I suspect others are wanting more out of the scanner than it can deliver. It's been said on the list before; you can't expect a scanner that costs US$500 to provide the same quality as one that costs US$20K, yet it seems that many people expect as much. I had quite high expectations of my scanner, but I've come to learn a lot about its limitations. If I go about it the right way, the scans are great for my purposes. I've had them published as cover photos for a news-stand magazine, so I'm happy! my opinion and go for Minolta's Scan Elite II. My LS-30 has served me quite well for the time I had it, but the hearsay about Nikon's LS-40 and the behaviour of their service really doesn't encourage me to go with Nikon again. The Minolta for ICE? As opposed to a Polaroid? I've heard very little on the list about Minolta scanners. I presume it's because there's few in circulation, but maybe it's because the users are happy with the way they work? Rob PS Now I'm about to go to Japan, and I'm going to miss having the LS30! PPS Don't get me wrong - I think Nikon are doing themselves a disservice with the way they are treating their scanner customers. DOF clearly *is* an issue, and the problems with Nikonscan can't be helping sales. But I use the film strip holder if I have time, and use Vuescan, and I get the results I need!
filmscanners: RE: Automatic best focus average solution for selecting focus point? (was RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available)
Stuart wrote: Would it be possible to add an automatic multi-point focus option, which would internally manually take focus at say 9 points across the image Would more than five be necessary? Five points in a domino pattern would seem to cover the frame pretty well. Even five points would take a long time to do. Nine would be painful. =8^o I don't have the means to measure it, but I'd guess that nine focus measurements would take about as long as using the film strip holder (doesn't help those with mounted slides, I know). Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Correction for daylight slides with artif...
Ed wrote: Ed, does this make the Fluorescent colour option in Vuescan obsolete? The fluorescent option has never been especially useful - it just applies a fixed ratio to try to compensate for typical fluorescent light colors (i.e. greenish light). Which is certainly handy if photos have been taken under those light conditions. It doesn't adjust for faded film dyes, which is what I'm assuming the problem is with the slides you're scanning. Someone else was talking about photos which had a green colour cast from existing light, which sounded like it was fluorescent light. If the film dyes aren't faded, just set Color|Color balance to White balance. So the fluorescent setting in the colour options isn't really needed? [Autolevels] No, it works fine. Cool. Thanks! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: VueScan Improvements Was: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Perhaps it would be helpful for some of you guys who know the program | from a user's standpoint to write some instructions on how you scan, | what settings you use (and why), what works for you and what doesn't. | Knowing what scanner you use and your expectations (low, medium, high) | would be helpful. Us neophytes could study through them and pick up a | lot of knowledge you've dredged from the hard school of experience. Ed asked if anyone was interested in writing documentation a while back, and I made an offer. I don't remember why I was turned down. I would be happy to write a tutorial if others want to send me their suggestions (preferably an outline of the workflow you use), or just an outline of the workflow I use. A lot depends on the software you use, what kind of film you are scanning, what scanner you're using, etc. Hopefully the basics would translate reasonably well from one *film* scanner to another. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Correction for daylight slides with artificial light
Ed wrote: VueScan's Filter|Restore fading option does this automatically. Ed, does this make the Fluorescent colour option in Vuescan obsolete? And while I'm asking - at some point in the past you said that the Autolevels option in the colour settings was broken - is it still broken? I don't know if anyone regularly uses those settings, but if they're obsolete maybe they should be removed? The only colour settings I tend to use are White Balance, Neutral and None. Regards, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available
Julian wrote: I can't see any actual advantage in putting the focus point towards a corner rather than just near the top or bottom edge. Because the main headache with focussing has been bowed slides which form a kind of dome shape? A sensible average point would be halfway along a diagonal between the center and one corner. Using the motorised feeder with curled strips of film could be problematic depending on which end of the frame is curled. :( In this situation I'd think the best option would be to use the center focus point since about 3/4 of the frame should be flat. The only real solution for curled film is the flim strip holder. If only the feeder held the film flat! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Nikon motorised feeder
Shunith wrote: From what i gather (and experience) the flatness problem is only there with mounted slides that have curved... It's possible to have uneven focus at the end of film strips when using the motorised feeder. Maybe bad handling? Otherwise it's impossible as no part of the Scanner, except for the film holders, are directly in touch with the film. Actually I don't think this is true. The motorised feeder curls the film strip inside the feeder to get to the end frame - especially with a 6 frame strip. I've dismantled the feeder, and I believe it's possible for the mechanism to touch the film where it curls it around. Others have mentioned scratches with the motorised feeder. FWIW I don't think it's ever damaged any of my film. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Correction for daylight slides with artificial light
Mario wrote: Anybody knows some kind of filter to apply during scanning or in Photoshop that parcially corrects for greenish color of daylight slides taken with artificial light? (I would like to recover a slide collection that I made almost thirty years ago in the assyrian rooms of the British Museum). TIA. Wouldn't autolevels (or manual levels) go a long way toward that? If you have Paintshop Pro 7 there's a colour restoration feature which works really well. In vuescan there's an option in the colour balance for fluorescent but I haven't tried it. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS120: Reflections on edge of neg
Barbara wrote: Well, I tried the magic marker along the edges, both on the edges of the carrier, and on the carrier cover, also. Sorry to say, it didn't work. Wouldn't you need something matte - like a black matte paint for plastic models? Magic marker ink might not take enough shine out of the plastic. I've seen some sort of edge effects with some slides on my LS30 but it's a while since I scanned mounted slides. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: How do I pull shadow detail from Nikon4000
Andy Darlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I need to use Vuescan or is there another way? You might as well give Vuescan a try. What film are you scanning - is there an obvious reason why it is very dense? Like Velvia, K25, Provia 100F? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Portra 400BW profile in VS
DRP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am actually testing Portra 400BW , the new chromogenic BW film from Kodak. Interesting - is this replacing T400CN which I hear is being phased out in the US? Rob
Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=455020size=lg Wow! It's amazingly sharp! But did you intend to leave in the dust and scratches? :-7 Rob
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
Ken wrote: That IS a sharp lens, BTW. Old chromenose Canon FD 100/2.8. Scanned on a FS 2710, with a touch of USM. 140%, 1.2 pixels, IIRC. Looks like I'm going to Japan next year, which should give me the chance to pick up a really good lens or two at a decent price. It's frustrating knowing how much better my photos could be! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Portra 400BW profile in VS
Didier wrote: Farther than the right profile in Vuescan, advices and tips for scanning chromogenic BW will also be welcome! Isn't there a profile for T400CN in Vuescan? Or you could use the generic setting and convert to greyscale later. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning large quantities of slides...
Ron wrote: I'm being transferred into the tropics, and I don't really want to carry my slide collection into that kind of environment... Probably a good idea. Some of mine have been badly damaged by mould and I live in a sub-tropical area. A friend of mine went to great lengths to make a cooled cabinet for his films. I'm looking at acquiring a slide scanner to do this job...and I don't have an unlimited budget... It's all 35mm, no APS. It's a mix of Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Fujichrome... I don't want to do them one at a time, and yet I'm not sure I can afford the cost of the bulk loader with the Nikon 4000ED or some equivalent... I know I will need some form of help with the dust/scratches (ICE or FARE, or something else?)... Not on all, but certainly on the older ones... However, the older ones are Kodachrome, which I understand isn't helped much... Speed is the problem. My LS30 is quite fast, and the LS2000 should be as well. You might be able to pick up a second hand LS2000 with the slide feeder, although it had a reputation for jamming. The only other thing I could suggest would be to put the best ones on PhotoCD. Unfortunately the SS4000 is quite slow with no hardware dust and scratch removal, and the Acer even slower especially when using ICE. AFAIK the holders for the Canon 2710 have to be set for each slide so it would be slow to use as well. The Nikon slide feeder is the only option I can think of for batch scanning large numbers of slides. If you really need the 4000dpi and 14bit dynamic range of the LS4000, you'll probably have to find the money. But if the 2700dpi and 12 bits of the LS2000 is enough, a second hand or refurb unit would be worth looking into. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your suggestions are helping. Generic and Neutral color balance are getting me closer to at least the right hues, although the saturation is still way off. Saturation is always low with Vuescan in my experience, but it's easily fixed in an editor. Glad you could get a bit closer! Rob
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any grey point you can use with Levels to neutralise the image? This sounds interesting - but I'm afraid I dont' fully understand the notion. Would you mind explaining a little further? If you use the levels tool in Photoshop and find a spot in the frame which should be mid grey, you can use the grey eye dropper to set that as a grey point. Photoshop adjusts the colours so that the grey point is neutral. I find this really helps if there is such a point in the photo - shadow areas on a white surface can be handy if there's nothing that is really grey. Experiment with the tool and check out the effect. People who are more expert in Photoshop should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about how the tool works - I'm just going on what it appears to do and what has been said in this forum. I mostly use Paintshop Pro. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV - positioning
Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The latter would suit my desk layout better, but will it affect the scanner's performance in any way? Is there an optimal position, or will it make no difference? My LS30 has been lying on its side for about a year now. It works fine. One possible advantage is that the dust is less likely to settle on the CCD. Disadvantages - the film strip holder has a habit of making the film slightly off square due to gravity.The SA-20 and IA-20 work fine. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Fuji 800
I just processed a roll of Fuji 800 which has both underexposed frames and overexposed frames. It should give me some idea of the difference in grain. Well, this roll of Fuji 800 doesn't seem to demonstrate the same awful grain I've seen in the past! :-7 Yes, there's quite a lot of grain, but perhaps because the photos are reasonably appropriately exposed, the results are much more useable. The photos I had trouble with before were from a Fuji 800 disposible camera taken underwater - so they were mostly very underexposed. With this film, the underexposed shots are star trails, so by the time you readjust the contrast and brightness they don't look too bad! I was momentarily excited when I picked up the roll today because I thought I had captured a meteor. Then I realised it was lens flare. :( I almost got excited again when scanned one frame - a line had appeared which was not on the print. It turned out to be a scratch. Oh well! Here's a jpeg showing small parts of two frames from the film at 1:1 from the 2700ppi scan. One shows the belt of Orion, and the other shows part of someone's face. The latter was taken with flash and the camera set to +1EV. I haven't adjusted the contrast properly in either image, so they're flatter than they should be and the grain is more obvious. In the 6x4 prints of the overexposed frames, the grain isn't particularly noticeable. The images are sharp and punchy - it's amazing for an 800 speed film. Clearly the grain would become much more obvious in larger prints. I can see why a lot of photographers who don't need big prints love this film. If anyone is interested I put together another jpeg which shows a similar sized snippet from a Provia 100F slide next to the overexposed snippet of Fuji 800. Rob PS Trying to figure out the colour balance for the night shots is difficult - there's trees at the edges lit by the green light of fluorescent street lights, and the sky is reflecting sodium (? - orange anyhow) street lights... attachment: Fuji800grain.jpg
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Fuji 800
Bob wrote: Which Fuji 800 film? NHG-II? NPZ? Super-G? It's the consumer version sold in camera stores in Australia as Fuji Superia 800. I would have to check the actual film strip to see if there is any other designation. The Super G series were only in the US I think. Grain and some grain aliasing can be seen on scans with LS-30 and vuescan in the darkest (least exposed) areas; but I think that is to be expected given the lighting. Well-exposed areas have not shown this. The film seems quite low contrast to me - but that's probably because a lot of the film I've shot lately was Provia 100F. The grain in the 800 is amazingly fine IMO if the film is properly exposed. I just wish I had an underwater camera with a strobe! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV - positioning
Ralf wrote: I have encountered one serious drawback as to operating my LS-30 flat: When using the film strip holder (the tiny metal-plastic thing, not the motor-driven feeder), the focus would be inaccurate, apparently as a result of the oscillating scanner movement. Well, that surprises me. The film strip holder is held very tightly by the scanner along the axis of the light path. I've never had a problem with focus of films held in the film strip holder. The only focus problems I've had were with frame at the ends of film strips in the motorised feeder, where film curl causes one end of the frame to be out of focus. So I guess - YMMV. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
Ken wrote: Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH, NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas? Is there any grey point you can use with Levels to neutralise the image? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
Ken Durling wrote: Tried NHG, and it was way off. Haven't tried SHG, and I don't know why not! Will do and report. I don't know if you've tried this, but have a go at Generic Colour Negative and Neutral instead of White Balance. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: To Ed H; was: Vuescan for Minolta Scan Multi Pro
So there is a program that listens to the bus and logs everything that goes through it? Vuescan has a mode which dumps SCSI commands. don't know what other tools Ed may use. Do they make any basic sense or are they like assembler or machine language, if those terms are still in use? I've no idea. I'd imagine they're byte sequences not textual commands. Rob
filmscanners: IR channel and softness
It occurred to me to wonder whether some of the softness in the use of ICE or infra-red cleaning may be due to the difference in focus needed. If you take photos with IR film, you have to set the focus differently to visible light. If the difference is significant in a scanner light path, maybe this accounts for some of the softness when removing dust and scratches? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan clipping flat images
Jawed wrote: An 8-bit A/D really would struggle. I agree but it was as I mentioned, an artificial example. Maybe I should have worked with what I actually have, which is a scanner with a 12 bit A/D that the firmware drops out the 2 LSB from to return 10 bits per channel. It doesn't matter how many bits are on the A/D - it could be 32 for all it matters. What matters is how large a range of numbers is produced. With a neg film, the range will be much more narrow than a slide film. If it equates (by your estimates of 6 to 7 bits) to a range of only 5 to 6 bits of variation, the output will posterise easily. 7.x bits of scanned data are gonna be stretched a bit thin by the time the image has been decoded. Even more so when you start doing Levels/contrast adjustments or curves. Exactly. So you need as many bits per channel as possible on the input side to get the best quality at the other end. [CCD linearity] integration time. Whether this effect is ever significant is something I don't know. Really needs someone who's implemented a scanner at this level of detail to comment. In the past it's been stated on this list that the CCDs used are linear for all intents and purposes. sensitivity compressed into a much more narrow range. If you don't have enough bits, you won't get the subtle tones whichare in the film. Agreed. Though this does depend on how far from the desired result the scan is. Sure. The less you have to manipulate it, the better - yet isn't this contrary to experience? Most people seem to be saying that it's easier to get good scans from colour negs than slides, yet they require a LOT more manipulation of the data than scanning a colour slide. When you scan a true b+w film, it seems the scanner loses a very significant amount of dynamic range, a bit or more (I don't know what the mechanism for this is - is it solely because scanning is not done across the R, G and B channels - but only on, say, G?). I don't know what Nikonscan does, exactly - it seems to take the output of only one channel, and only as 8 bit data. That immediately cuts the dynamic range. Vuescan combines the colour channels into a high bit file. But AFAICS it's the density of BW film which is the problem fot a Nikon, aside from nasty interactions between the LED light and the silver grains. No, they don't. As Ed explained, they change the exposure time not the brightness of the LEDs. I believe you're misquoting Ed. No. Ed posted very emphatically that he had traced the commands used by the Nikon scanners, and they changed the integration time, nothing else. He also mentioned that changing the analog gain affected the speed of the scan. If it was LED intensity, the scan time would be unaffected. The manual says the brightness changes, too The manual is misleading. Either the tech writer was trying to explain things in photographic terms of exposure compensation or they were misinformed. Unless you mean that there is no connection between Nikon Scan's auto-exposure algorithm and LED brightness. There isn't. The LED brightness is fixed and the exposure is adjusted by varying the integration time. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
John wrote: interference might not exist. But that still leaves the problem of some people reporting grain aliasing problems with these scanners and others not. Anyone not have the problem with a 4000 dpi scanner? Tony Sleep said in the past that he had far ferwer problems with the SS4000 and aliasing. There seems to be an unfortunate critical point at around 2700dpi which goes away at 4000dpi. Grain will look sharper or more intense on Nikon scanners because of the collimated light, so there will be less apparent grain on other 2700dpi scanners with fluorescent light sources such as the FS2710. For instance, I've found the grain in Fuji 800 print film horrid, but Tony said it was fine. On the other hand Tony was overexposing the 800 while I was (of necessity) underexposing it. I haven't tried Fuji 800 overexposed to look at the difference in apparent grain. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: VueScan cropping
Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with some shots taken on 800 Fuji film which was left over after I shot some fireworks a few weeks ago, and which produced scans which were just too grainy with NikonScan. Anything dark will be a problem because large amounts of the image will be close to the film base. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner
...I'm very frustrated that I can't dodge and burn in BW images. I've read an article about simulating these functions by using multiple layers, but I haven't learned about layers, yet, and the whole thing was over my head. Try downloading a demo of Paintshop Pro. There's dodge and burn capabilities - try the Retouch tool which does dodge, burn, saturation, lightness,hue, smudge... lots and LOTS of things. You can also combine layers with dodge and burn and lots of other effects. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan vs Vuescan
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of interest, which scanner are you using? LS40. How many bits does Nikonscan deliver? ISTR it's only 8, but the input is 14? Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikonscan vs Vuescan
Jawed wrote: No, from the LS40, Nikon Scan will deliver 12 bits inside a 16-bit file. That would certainly make Nikonscan useful! :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan clipping flat images
Jawed wrote: I would agree with this. The intention is quite clearly to make the data fill the range of possible values. For reasons analogous to the use of 16-bit scans (really 10, 12 or 14 bits, generally): to maximise tonal smoothness and provide resilience under further editing. Maybe I'm misreading this, but something I've wondered is whether any scanners actually remap the data. It's hard to describe without a diagram - suppose you have a monochrome scanner with an 8 bit A/D. The A/D can only produce numbers from 0 to 255. If the actual image information is all between (say) 10 and 245 then you've effectively lost 8% of the resolution possible from 8 bits. But if you remap that range so that 10-0 and 245-255, you're stretching the values in between. I presume this stretching is what adjusting levels actually does. But presumably the fewer bits from the A/D, and the smaller the input range, the poorer the result would be. Does setting the black and white points cause the data to be remapped? I presume this remapping is always post A/D. Are there any scanners which attempt to adjust the input levels to maximise the range of values from the A/D? As far as I can tell, setting the black and white points in (say) Nikonscan is no different to doing the same thing to a flat file in Photoshop with Levels? BTW as far as colour shifts are concerned, I found Picture Window Pro's ability to do levels in colour spaces other than RGB helped a lot. RGB levels in PS tends to shift the colour balance, but HSL levels in PWP doesn't. What am I missing here? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan. I'd suggest Fuji Superia 400. I haven't tried Supra 400 as I can only easily buy it in packs of 5. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital post-processing, there's really no time. Something else comes to mind - given the current paranoia in the world, you probably want to try to process the film in situ if you have to go through baggage checks. High speed film especially may suffer if the X-ray scanners are pumped up as high as they can go. Carry the film in hand luggage - I think we dicussed this on the list before? Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Epson Perfection 1650 Photo
John wrote: So here is the question: When I scan slides that are sharp (8X loupe) the scans are not critically sharp (fuzzy) to some varying degrees. FWIW, my first experience with a film scanner was an Epson Filmscan 200. This claimed to scan at 2400dpi but actually scanned at 1200 and interpolated. Scans from the Epson weren't as sharp as a flatbed scan of a 10x8 Cibachrome made from the same slide. I haven't used the 1650, but my experience (and from what I've read others have experienced the same), Epson scanners tend to produce soft results. If you're after critical sharpness from 35mm you'll probably have to get a dedicated film scanner such as a Polaroid SS4000. Rob PS The filmscan had a 1200 pixel array and used the stepper to scan in one direction at 2400dpi, then interpolated the other direction. The result of scanning at 2400dpi wasn't noticeably different from scanning at 1200dpi and using PSP to resample. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Nikonscan vs Vuescan
Jawed wrote: By vitality I don't merely mean contrast/black-point/white-point. I also mean the nature of the tonality of the image. Something related to the question of gamma and also the inherent S-shaped response that all films have (so far as I know). So, all the effort I put into obtaining the full tonal range in a negative (in the form of a flat scan) is wasted because I get distinctly more pleasing images from Nikon Scan. Out of interest, which scanner are you using? I get much more tonal information out of Vuescan with the LS30 than Nikonscan - mostly I expect because Nikonscan hobbles the output to 8 bits per channel. Vuescan was a fait accompli for me anyhow - ealier versions of Nikonscan gave me output made useless with jaggies. Nikonscan 3.1 is annoyingly slow to do things like focus, autoexposure and the main scan. Using curves in Photoshop or Picture Window Pro it seems easy to me to get a pleasing result. *shrug* If Nikonscan gives you what you want, nobody says you have to use Vuescan. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update
Julian wrote: I have used both the Euro and US versions at different times on my LS2000 with no trouble. I really doubt that even Nikon would have two *different* software versions both called Nikonscan 3.1.1. There will be spelling differences in the documentation and interface (eg. the word colour). There may be other differences such as default measurements in metric instead of imperial, dates etc. I know that with other software eg. PSP, it's not advisable to upgrade a european english version with the US english version or vice-versa. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this regard, but the comments were mild. Other than that I don't remember anyone anywhere mentioning FOCUS as a problem with the Polaroid. Strictly speaking, the problem with the Nikon is depth of field, not focus. :) [question to all] Has anyone with a SS4000 found a curved slide that causes a problem? My impression is that the Polaroid's light source is bright enough to avoid DOF problems. Rob
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatively, you could move the list to a yahoogroups list. Which also allow more than one moderator so the work can be shared. Rob
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Bill wrote: o I have thousands of Kodachrome slides dating back twenty years in both plastic and cardboard mounts with what I consider normal degrees of curvature for slides. Hi Bill, I was wondering whether you've tried scanning any of these slides on a Polaroid SS4000 and compared the results? Has anyone done any testing on the depth of field on the SS4000? I've heard a lot about the Nikons, but not much about the Polaroid. I'm not disputing there's a problem - I'm just wondering whether the problem persists with other 4000dpi scanners and the same slides? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Ezio wrote: Congratulations for the professional results Rob ! :-) Thanks! Now if I can get articles printed in mags where I get *paid* for it... I have 3 U160 IBM 1rpm and NO FANS at all while the box is a cheap box I have assembled on my own with a 350W power supply ( 20$ the power supply at any shop) and a cage costing 30$ at any shop. Do you have airconditioning in the room where the computer is located, and do the summertime conditions reach 36C and 90+% humidity? Or let's be more realistic - night time temps of 28C and 90% humidity? I don't get to use my home computer during the day much other than weekends! Seriously though - could you please email me (off list) the address of the company you are buying the drives from? It would be nice to have a fast SCSI drive to stream data to and from. My motherboard has a U2W interface (LVD). I'd be impressed if the shipping costs to Oz were similar. Thanks, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem
Tom wrote: Happened to me too. Call Polaroid and ask for the free cleaning kit. They'll send you a little brush gadget that attaches to your slide carrier. Follow the instructions. For 'most' people, that fixes the problem. If the brush doesn't work, you can also try blowing the dust out of the sensor with compressed air - but check whether opening the case of the scanner voids the warranty. If the scanner is under warranty and the brush doesn't work, the best option may be a warranty repair. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c
Ezio wrote: The HP6200 is broken (I actually scanned 100 times max !!) (150$ asked for a repair by the HP carry - in centre !!) I have substituted the flatbed with an inexpensive Genius Kye 50$ worth ... and it produces good results for my purposes. Ready to listen to people knowing better than me the 7400 , but I won't buy this brand any more .. :-((( I've had an HP Scanjet IIIc since 1995 and it is still going strong. I've scanned a LOT of stuff with it. However, I understand that much more recent models may not have the same quality. Personally if I was going to buy another flatbed right now I'd get a Canon - for reflective scanning they're cheap and work very well. For things that don't fit on the flatbed you can use stitching software to reassemble multiple scans. But large transparencies are a problem. Better options might be to look at Epson or Umax for small transparencies. I don't know if there's anything cheap that will scan a large transparency well. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem
David wrote: If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid support. David, maybe this is a dumb suggestion but why not add the brush to the standard kit for the scanner? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Comparing the sharpness of scans
Is anyone else interested in taking a couple of photos of a resolution target to attempt to compare the sharpness of your lenses? I won't be able to compare the results of the photos I took last weekend until I finish the roll in my own camera. I just have to think of something to use 2/3 of a roll of 100F on... The photos from the Canon lenses look nice. I've scanned a couple with a SS4000 and they don't look amazingly sharper than photos from my own camera, but I'll need to scan the photos I took with mine on the same scanner to compare them side by side. One thing I noticed was that it was much easier to focus the big lenses because the viewfinder image was much brighter. I just priced a 43mm Pentax prime as an import from Japan. Much cheaper that way for me, as the Australian prices are silly. Now I just need to find US$450... Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Andrea de Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a CreoScitex scanner with attached a, Apple G4 Silver 733 with OS 9.2.1 and 1GB of ram; I noticed that the internal HD is a slow 5400rpm UltraAta HD; question: since I work only with Photoshop and my images are about 60mb in size and I just have to open and save them during the day (we process about 200 images/day), I was wondering what is the best and effective way to speed up my work: buy a scsi external HD 10.000rpm (total cost about 650 UK pounds), OR buy an internal UltraAta 7200 rpm (total cost about 250 UK pounds) ??? I was going to suggest an IDE RAID card but then I noticed you were talking a Mac. Under those circumstances the SCSI drive is probably the best option. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a related note - I kind if wish Vuescan didn't leave it so easy to overwrite a file, since it doesn't ask you if you want to overwrite the file of the same name. I've had to rescan a couple when I forgot to go into files and change the name. This is such a given in most Windows apps, I wonder why Ed didn't set it up this way? Or am I missing something? If you use the numbered sequencing (filename01+), you shouldn't overwrie anything. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Pre scan viewer?
Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does this equipment manage to make a colour positive and at the same time remove the orange mask? Wouldn't this be the same type of digital image processing as film scanner software uses to produce a preview of a scanned negative? How is this imaging camera different from a film scanner? The unit I've seen was made by Tamron and consisted of a backlit neg holder and a CCD camera. I don't know whether the orange mask removal is done on the fly electronically not digitally but I suspect the former. Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Laurie wrote: (spanning). I understand what RAID 1 (mirroring) is and how it works; but I really do not understand how RAID 0 works or what parallel operation of the two drives on the channel means and entails. Striping simply means that data is interleaved on different disks. In a simple two disk stripe set, you interleave between two drives. When the file is read or written, you're using both drives, so (in an ideal world) you get twice the speed of a single drive. In practice it's not quite double, but it can be close. While it may be different for third party RAID controllers, the manual for the RAID controller on the ABIT KG7-RAID motherboard says that you need 4 drives to use RAID 0+1 and that the second pair duplicate the first pair. In RAID 0/1 you have four drives - two sets of interleaved drives, with the data mirrored between the pairs. So you get the speed increase of striping plus the security of mirroring *but* you lose storage space by mirroring. If you have two 20GB disks interleaved, you get 40GB of storage with almost double the speed. Mirrored you have normal speed but greater security. To get the combination you have the expense of four 20GB drives giving you 40GB storage with security and speed. A better system with multiple drives is RAID5 where you have parity - it's a bit complicated to explain but in RAID5 any of the drives can go down and you can rebuild the data from the other drives. This sort of thing tends to be expensive to set up, just like 0/1! IMO the higher RAID types are fine for servers, but not worth the hassle for home use. I think for home/SOHO use with film scanning, go for striping to get the speed and if you're worried about security, get a tape drive for backup. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Paul wrote: I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea. The reason is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one fails, you lose all the data. This is true - however most of us rely on one hard drive for *everything*. Striping across two drives gives you much greater speed with no significant difference in reliability (and yes I know there's two devices involved). Personally I copy my data to CDR, and if the hard drive dies I'll have to rebuild the OS from scratch. There's better options, but the cost and hassle isn't worth it for me. I'd rather be running a two drive stripe set and halve the time I sit around waiting to load and save 27MB film scans. If you can afford the number of drives required to get to RAID 0/1 or 5, go for it. Rob PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is irrelevent to Mac users? Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac? Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Ezio wrote: I really cannot understand why it would be needed such a complication and dependancy from the controller vendor when the SCSI hard drives cost almost the same (or 20% more max) of IDE hard drives ! Ezio, I know we've been here before, but SCSI isn't a cheap option for everyone. Certainly, if I was in the US and had access to the sorts of prices you quote from ebay, I'd use SCSI... well, there's other problems. If I wanted to use a 10Krpm SCSI drive I'd also have to fit a cooling fan in my computer and move house to somewhere that had air-conditioning. I simply couldn't run such hard drives in 30+C temperatures reliably. I can buy two 7200rpm IDE drives locally for about US$250, plus another US$45 for an IDE RAID controller. The SCSI option (in Australia) would cost me US$200 for the SCSI controller card, and at least US$500 for an equivalent capacity 10Krpm SCSI drive. Plus, the IDE drives would behave themselves more reliably outside of an airconditioned office. Obscanning: on a completely different topic, I've just taken a roll of Provia 100F using two L series Canon lenses. I should get back the results tomorrow so I can get an idea of how much difference the lenses made in scanning on the LS30. Rob PS I got two more of my photos on the magazine cover. Scanned with the LS30 and they look great! :) Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a l imiting factor in sharpness?
Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and photography! You wouldn't envy my income from it! :) He claims that suspending the camera by the tripod is much better than using a fixed tripod that transmits the vibrations from the airplane to the camera through the tripod. That makes sense. Unfortunately due to money limitations I couldn't afford either as gyroscopic tripod or stabilisation lens. Maybe one day! Good to know about the options in any case. The best photographic platform I've flown in so far was an ultralight called a Drifter. Sitting in the front seat, the nose cone and windshield only come to about mid-chest height, so you basically have 180 degrees of unobstructed view. More if you shoot down to the left or right. The plane has a pusher prop, so it's behind you. But it's very windy, even if the aircraft only flies quite slowly compared to a general aviation aircraft like a Cessna. Regards, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: grain in negs/slides
Tomasz wrote: Why do scans of color negatives appear grainier than those from slides? From what I've read on this list, it's related to the exposure latitude of colour negs. To get greater latitude, the grain in neg film varies in size much more than in slide film. The very narrow exposure latitude of slide film results in more consistent grain. My experience with a 2700spi scanner is that the larger elements of the neg grain cause aliasing and makes the grain appear to be worse than it really is. Scanners with collimated light sources like the Nikons will tend to see grain more than those with diffuse light sources like the Polaroids. I haven't used a 4000spi scanner enough to know for myself, but other such as Tony Sleep have said that apparent grain in negs is a lot less with a 4000spi scanner like the SS4000 than with a Nikon scanner. Tony (and others I think) have also mentioned about the visibility of different sized grain patterns depending on how the film is exposed and developed, but I think that's an issue better covered by someone who understand the chemistry. I have always read and experienced myself that color negs are less grainy, especially in high ISO emulsions and that in slides everything above ISO 100 shows pronounced grain (ok - naow we have Provia 400F). I think virtualyl all my slide films are ISO100. As far as I can remember, I've shot one or two rolls of Kodak Extachrome push film at EI1600, and a roll of Provia 400F. I didn't mind the grain in the Provia. Ah- I've also used a couple of rolls of Kodak 320T and they were very grainy, but I expected that under the circumstance (dark stage lighting). I'm just curious what's so peculiar in film structures that different effects are achieved although both types of film use dye clouds. FWIW the different dye clouds seem to behave quite differently with light. Colour neg film grain seems to look sharper and more coarse, while slide film grain seems to look smoother. I've seen photomicrographs of Provia 100F and it looks quite amorphous. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Dave wrote: is simply more grain in some areas of the negative than others. I wonder if this is due to some sort of stacking effect (Austin?), whereby areas with dyes closer to the color of the base appear grainier. Tony - are you around? Tony mentioned something about different grain being more or less visible in different areas of the film. I thin it was in response to a comment I made about how variable the grain is in T400CN. Grain in shadows is very coarse, while in highlights it's virtually non-existent. I think it had something to do with which emulsion layers were most sensitive to which intensities of light and therefore what got removed in processing? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
John wrote: Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using are the best it will get or the best that is out there. I have a Nikon LS30. It's technology which is what, four years old? There's much better scanners on the market now if one has the money. I don't. Having said that, I get excellent (IMO) results from the LS30 with the right films exposed well. The LS30 is able to produce scans with enough resolution for a magazine cover page at 300dpi, and at the moment, that's all I need. If you have an image that is that good get a drum scan from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere. I suspect the cost of sending the film from Austraila to the States and returning the result on a CDR (if indeed an 11K scan would fit) would be prohibitive. More to the point, I have no need for that sort of resolution, nor does the magazine I'm supplying files to. If I was fortunate enough to be supplying photos to National Geographic however... I am not saying you can't get good results and sell work using these scanners but lenses and film are more of a high quality constant than the digital age we have just begun to get into. Precisely why I'm looking at getting better glass in front of the film. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Dave wrote: A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price. Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan. Thanks, Dave. The other thing I meant to ask was what 800 speed film? Is it Fuji Superia 800 print film? Rob PS Tony Sleep has mentioned in the past that he often uses his SS4000 to scan Fuji 800 exposed at a higher speed and gets great results. My only experiences with 800 have been with low light (underexposed) images and was unimpressed with the grain aliasing I saw. Overexposed I don't doubt the story is different! Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Multiple passes
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone feel like expounding briefly on the multiple pass technique? It just means the scanner does several passes and combines the result. I'm using Vuescan and a FS2710, slides and both color and BW negs. What is the purpose and what determines the number of passes you set? Usually to get more shadow detail and less noise. By averaging the passes you should reduce noise and effectively increase the ability of the scanner to pick up details. But the scanner registration must be exact - the passes have to line up precisely. The Nikon LS2000, 4000 and 8000 have an advantage here because they can do multi-exposure in a single pass. Each exposure line gets done multiple times in one pass. No registration problem. I tried a couple at 2 passes, and saw no noticeable effect, although I'm not at all sure what I'm looking for. I don't know if it's terribly useful with a 2710. Any other 2710 owners use multipass? I don't use it much with my LS30, but when I have tried it the registration has been OK. It seems to cause a slight loss of sharpness, but also seems to reduce aliasing. Rob
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Slide scanner question.
Eric wrote: Nikon LS IV 2900DPI with Digital ICE, ROC and Gem software approx $750.00 http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 2700 DPI with ICE, ROC and GEM software multipass scanning approx. $750.00 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS2K/LS2KA.HTM Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 multipass scanning and higher resolution and silverfast software around $699.00 with a $200.00 rebate http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/SS4000/SS40A.HTM not going to print them, yet, just scan and post on web and other things... Those three scanners will give you more than enough resolution for the web, in fact more than enough to print up to A3. I wouldn't go for the LS2000 - if anyone is still selling them it's old stock or a refurb. The LSIV has better resolution. Of those three I'd go for the SS4000 given the price an dknowing the results from the scanner - unless you have a lot of old dirty films you want to scan. If the films are all clean and new, go for the Polaroid. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Roger wrote: It sounds like you want to know how much money you should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in order to get decent scans. Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are decent enough for me, but they could be better. All these terms are relative. :) The best 35mm lens will have trouble making a really good 11x14. The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 but not much over 11x14. See above about relative. :) I believe you absolutely as far as a really good print from the point of view of a Pro photographer. But for instance I have a 30x20 photographic print (as opposed to inkjet) at home which everyone raves about. It was printed in 1981 from ordinary Kodak 100ASA colour negative film, and taken with a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera dating from about 1950. But I take your point. It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan. Or other factors like aperture, camera shake etc. You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get quality. Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased lens test data. I was pleasantly surprised to see that some Pentax lenses rated very well on that site. I thought I might have to change cameras to get a better lens. Rob, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap ones). Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens. Makes sense. Shoot the lens under optimum conditions. If only that were always possible! My photos taken from ultralights are under pretty challenging conditions - no chance of a tripod, vibration and wind buffeting, hand held... but at least the bright conditions make a high shutter speed possible! :) Again, I take your point. Don't spend your money on a lens based on the brand name. Good advice - there seems to be a lot of variations in lenses. Plan on buying a 4000ppi scanner someday. By the time I can afford it maybe they'll be 6000ppi. ;) Thanks for the suggestions. Rob PS Thanks to others who have responded with their experiences of scanning and what impact the lens used has had. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Austin wrote: What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon primes to Leica/Contax primes... Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes, I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the best scans - and I could probably afford the scanner. :) I have a number of lenses, but the one which is causing the most frustration from a lack of sharpness is the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Hence my recent question about chasing a better lens. The Pentax 43mm limited is looking good at the moment - provided I can find the cash. Obscanning: Moral of the story is don't expect extraordinary scans if the lenses you're using are very ordinary... Rob PS Tony, hopefully my headers won't be screwed up anymore. The cause is the default setting in Outlook Express 5.x for Western ISO text. The setting is hard to find and its significance not obvious. It's generally only a problem for digest users. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Austin wrote: Ah, yes. Seriously, DO chase a better lense! The Contax 50/1.4 is a cheapie and any of the Contax lenses are in the same league as Leica glass. It's Zeiss glass...and they are superb performers, most any of them, and about 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of Leica glass. I'd love to, but then I'd have to buy a new camera body as well. :) This weekend I'm trying out an EOS 50 with a Canon 28-70L and a 100mm prime to see how obvious the differences are. I'm going to try all the different lenses I have as well - I was thinking of setting up the USAF target so I have something consistent as one possible subject. As I said before, the Pentax 43mm Limited is looking like the best option at this point. Lots of people seem to be raving about the Limited lenses, and one magazine has adopted the 43mm as its reference lens. In an ideal world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds, so the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already have. Will have to buy another roll of Provia 100F... Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between their lenses when scanning films? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?
Hi Alex! Rob, there are many Mailing Lists and Forums available online for any major brand (Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax) where you will find a lot of that brand specialists who can surely advise you about the brand and third-party lenses you would go with. Thanks. Someone sent me an address to subscribe to a Pentax list and I've asked the question there. regard. I don't know which camera system do you use, so will hold from speaking particularly about something special. My current SLR is a Pentax MZ5. I have two old K mount lenses, 50mm and 28mm, and two FA lenses, 28-80 and 70-300. One word only: basically all 28-80 (especially those of f/3.5-5.6) are so-called kit lenses produced especially to e sold in kits with low and low-mid specified bodies. They featured by very cheap glass capable of delivering mediocre results, since the main goal of such lenses is the lowest possible price rather then quality. Sure, I'd expect that. The 28-80 zooms are essentially thrown in for free when you buy the camera. In optics the rule: you get what you pay for has almost 100 % meaning... I'm usre this is generally true, although I imagine there's such a thing as limiting returns. I find it hard to believe that the price difference between the Pentax 50mm f1.7, f2.8 and f1.4 lenses would be obvious in the results. I'd like to have at least one lens I *know* is as sharp as I can afford. Rob
Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?
Sorry - I have been trying to take this thread offlist and failed to check the reply address on this one. :( FWIW I am looking to borrow a friend's camera to compare the quality of results with his prime lenses. I want to get an idea of just how much improvement I should expect before I run out and spend heaps on lenses. Is this relevent to film scanning - yes, because if I can't see the improvement when scanning at 2700ppi I probably won't spend the money on the lens! Rob
filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Winsor wrote: It seems to me that the 2700 dpi is the limiting factor. Rather like the old joke about the senior citizen stereo sale special. Doesn't matter much how good the speakers are if you can't hear them. No, I don't think so. I've tried scanning a few of my slides on a Polaroid SS4000, and the amount of extra information seems small. There's more pixels, but there doesn't seem to be much difference between a 2700ppi scan resampled to 4000dpi and the 4000dpi image. The Sprintscan can get more shadow information out of a slide, but that's dynamic range, which is a different issue. A very sharp image on the film will give a sharper scan - garbage in garbage out obviously applies. I'm not saying that a higher resolution or dynamic range scanner would be a bad thing. I'm simply saying that the scanner can't fix problems with the source. If all my photos were equally fuzzy, I wouldn't know what I was missing. But the ones taken with prime lenses are significantly sharper (duh on my part). Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Austin wrote: That VERY much depends on the film being scanned, what camera/lense and development were used. I find a VERY large difference in quality of 4000spi scans vs 2700spi scans. I find the 2700 scans are not very sharp, and don't have near the detail the 4000spi scans do...and then 5080 is even far better than 4000. It also depends on what scanners you are talking about. I was specifically talking about my Nikon LS30 and the Polaroid SS4000 at work. The film FWIW was Fuji Provia 100F. I was specifically interested in the ability of the SS4000 to get shadow detail, and it does get much more than the LS30. Apart from shadow detail, the differences weren't staggering. I did *not* think that the SS4K scans were significantly sharper than the Nikon. There was just more shadow detail. However, rather than get into a disagreement about a scanner I don't own (the SS4000), all I'm saying at this point is that my photos don't seem to be sharp enough to get the most out of the LS30, let alone the SS4K. I don't believe that the scanner is the limiting factor at the moment, and that's why I'm looking at getting at least one better lens. I'm not planning to buy a new scanner - I'd much rather spend the money on a new lens! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
This is a Just-Normlicht Mini, with 5 x 8 illuminated area and a 5000K tube. Suppose I lay a bunch of slides or negs on a flatbed scanner and put the light box (inverted) on top. Wouldn't this be sufficient to make a scanned contact sheet? No, the light isn't bright enough, and you'd have to disconnect the internal light in the scanner. The scanners firmware is also optimised for the internal light. YMMV. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan
Maris wrote: Sorry, Rob - you lost me there. What do you mean? | Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to different | values? If so, can't you use identical filenames? If you have a directory filled with raw files as the input directory, and specify a *different* directory for all the crops, it doesn't matter if the filenames are the same. Or am I missing the point about batch scanning files? Rob
