RE: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Michael wrote: >It seems to me Ed also made a change during that period of versions, the >result being his IR dust removal had absolutely no effect on areas of the >image where no dust was present (no softening). Have you also compared >those areas??? In my experience on the LS30, any cleaning setting on Vuescan (any version) makes the output slightly softer. The results may be different on other scanners. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: No batchscanning with Vs7.0 Mac?
> le 27/04/01 0:24, Rob Geraghty à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > Didier wrote: > >> I spent a couple of hours and failed in batchscanning > >> disk rawfiles (Vs7.0/Mac/324MbRAM) > > > > What scanner and what versio of Vuescan, Didier? > I'm scanning registered raw files from disk with Vuescan v7.015 on Mac > Rawfiles were first generated on a PC with a HPS20 scanner Oh! You're batch scanning raw files to make crops? Make sure the output filenames are different from the input filenames or you could have big problems. I've never tried batch scanning files, only batch scanning film. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
"Alessandro Pardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the scene I chose for my test was a *bit* contrasty, still the slide was > well exposed, and details in the shadows were perfectly visible even by > holding up the slide against a window. I expect that *all* the Nikon scanners will fall down in shadow detail because of the low intensity of light from the LEDs. The intensity of sunlight or a projector bulb is far greater than a scanner LED. > What I meant to test wasn't the > latitude of negatives vs. slides, which needs no test, but the capability of > the scanner to read from a slide, which has a higher density than a negative > (that is, there is a bigger difference between the lightest and the darkest > values *on the film*: this was another point agreed upon in the photo.net > thread I mentioned). OK, but separating what is a dynamic range problem and what is a lattude problem is a challenge. > I didn't use Vuescan, but I played with Nikonscan analog gain and each > Photoshop trick in my bag, still the difference between the two scans was so > big to convince me that it was an unfair match, given that the negative > already has the advantage of a wider latitude. Try Vuescan. You may find the extra 2 bits per channel helpful. Having said that, sure, shadows in dense slides are a hassle, but I'd prefer the fine grain of Provia 100F any day. Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
"Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After some experiment with the scratched film I found out that the best way > to have optimal resolution from the scanner are to move the focus area half > way out from the middle of the picture to the side. > This means that the depth of field now cover the middle and corner better > and the picture now looks equal sharp overall. This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the focus location in vuescan? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on > > my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit, 2700 > > ppi settings. As in 64bit is far better? > I looked at the code, and I think I can see the problem. I've added > this to my list of things to fix. Thanks for finding this. Cool! BTW I think I'll have to go back to Adobe RGB from ColormatchRGB in Vuescan. The cherry red colours and oversaturated reds are too hard to correct. On my LS30 and screen, ColormatchRGB just doesn't work with red. And the reds don't look right on the monitor at work either. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
JF Mahony wrote: > i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot > a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy > speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. > i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but > what kind. If you want to freeze action, try Kodak Supra 400 which is supposed to be optimised for scanning. Rob (I haven't had the chance to try it yet myself)
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI. "Vladislav Jurco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no > matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue > channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. > Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Maybe you guys need to exchange a slide or neg and try scanning exactly the same piece of film and compare the result? Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
"Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36 > properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film > adapter? Possibly Ed could modify vuescan to focus on a specific offset in the frame. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since dust is always "white" on negs and always "black" on slides, while > "noise" is usually lighter and "grain" is usually darker than the > surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the cleaning > algorithms? If you could characterise the noise in a particular CCD you could remove it using a fourier transform. I doubt it would work with grain aliasing and definitely not with dust because dust is too grossly random. But it ought to work effectively on CCD noise. Noise removal under specific circumstances like shadows or highlights might be a good thing to preserve details in other areas. Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more > when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so. Thanks Ed! I was thinking of all the Nikon scanners, which supposedly have a capability to focus on a specific point - I have an LS30. So far I don't think I've had significant focus problems except with the ends of some film strips in the strip feeder. Rob
Re: filmscanners: No batchscanning with Vs7.0 Mac?
Didier wrote: > That's it. I try batchscanning rawfiles to make crops (and to save time) Hm. I'll have to try batch cropping from raw files. I wouldn't have thought of it! Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Lynn wrote: >Rob wrote: >>Is there any way to set the focus location in vuescan? >"On the device tab of VueScan 7.0.10 on the right hand side change the focus >drop down box to: MANUAL That allows you to set the focus point but not in the way I meant. In Nikonscan you can click on a point in the preview and use that as the focus point for the focussing system. So it's an XY location in the image not the Z direction. Ed may not have implemented it because AFAIK it's only available in the Nikons. Rob PS Another thing I wish Vuescan did was report back how many frames there are in a strip. Vuescan reads the information - for instance if you tell it to scan frame 5 in a 4 frame strip, it will scan frame 4. But it isn't displayed anywhere. Yesterday I was trying to scan a strip which was 5 and a half frames (the camera tried to squeeze another frame on the film and partially overlapped the last frame). I ended up having to turn the strip around and scan the frame as frame 1 rather than frame 5. No big deal but it would be nice if Vuescan reported somewhere how many frames were detected by the scanner. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Jim wrote: > PEC 12 ONLY cleans grease- based stains. It does not clean water- > based stains. It will remove a fingerprint but not hard water > stains, for example. This point has not been made yet, so I > decided to add to this growing thread.. FWIW I tried to remove a fingerprint from a film strip yesterday only to find that it's embedded in the emulsion. The operator at the lab must have put their fingerprint on the film while the emulsion was wet. :( In their defense, it was right on the end of the film where an image *shouldn't* have been, but the camera had squeezed another image onto the end of the strip. Hopefully I'll be able to remove the fingerprint with some careful use of the cloning tool. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Scan for television screen
Steve would you *please* stop sending this message! It's appeared about 7 times now. If you didn't send it more than once, there must be some other problem with the mailing list? Regards, Rob -- Original Message -- >While it's true that the resolution of NTSC (American standard) is 720x480, >the pixels are not square - they are about 1 high and 0.9 wide. This means >that, though the resolution is 720x480, the aspect ratio of the image is >actually 640x480, or 4:3. > >The answer when all the math is done is that, for NTSC, you want to scan >to >end up with an image that is 640x480 pixels. Whichever program is used to >convert the image to a signal viewable on an NTSC monitor will take care >of >converting 640 square pixels to 720 rectangular pixels. Programs like Adobe >Premier and Apple's Final Cut Pro do this automatically. > >Steve Bye > >> Maris >> Don¹t worry about dpi nor TV size, the image size is 720pixels x 480pixels >> regardless of whether you have a 16" or 32" TV. Best save the file as >an >RGB >> flat PS file, Mac PICT or TIFF. >> >> -- >> >> Regards >> >> Richard > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Ed wrote: > I'm thinking of adding a focus offset option, in millimeters, for the offset > from the center of the image. I could alternatively add a focus > position (%) option, which would put the focus position some percentage > of the way into a frame (50% would be normal, 30% would move the > focus position near the edge of the frame). I'm leaning towards the latter. How about a +/- percentage either side of the center? Zero would be the middle. A bit less confusing than 50. A numeric scale would probably be more easily understandable than a measurement in millimetres (especially for those in the States ;). Rob
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Art wrote: >Every lab operates slightly differently in terms of how much film they >require to do their process Personally I don't think there's any good excuse for fingerprints on the emulsion, but I'm forgiving in this instance because the Sea & Sea was trying to take photos on every millimetre of the film. One of the first "frames" was cut in half by exposure to light during loading; the camera didn't wind on to frame 1. The camera also took the last "frame" (the one with the fingerprint) off the end of frame 24 but *overlapped* on the previous frame. It shouldn't have reset the shutter to allow the last image. I'm not particularly impressed by the Sea & Sea in this respect considering a cheap point and shoot can do this, and the Sea & Sea costs over US$350 for the body. > Regarding finger prints that are on the emulsion side. Remove the film > from the slide holder if its a slide, and the soak the film in warm > water with a drop or two of photoflo or equivalent, for up to half an > hour. The photoflo not only prevents spotting, but being a detergent, > also breaks down some of the grease in the fingerprint. I'll have to give this a try. The last partial image actually has a whole bunch of fish on it. I should have bought a roll of 36! I used negs since the exposures underwater were likely to be extremely variable. I'm having problems with reds in the images; I suspect Fuji Superia 400 tends to oversaturate reds when used with a flash. I rescanned one frame using Vuescan 6.02 and the reds are definitely more saturated with the current version of 7.x. I've also learned that "autolevels" can do some really awful things including highlighting grain if the colour balance in the image isn't "normal" daylight. I think this is one film I'll have to make raw scans from so I can experiment later with the best method of cropping. Otherwise I'm going to spend forever rescanning it! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Dean wrote: >Yes, zero should be in the center, but is this the center of the slide or >the center of the scan region? I would prefer the center of the scan >region. Also should indicate on the preview the location of the focus. >Maybe even have it adjustable there. All that would be made simpler using a similar method to that already implemented in Nikonscan; click on a button, click on a point in the image and that's where the focus is done. Sure, you could indicate that point in the preview if you like. Ed's suggestion was for a single dimension position presumably across the whole frame, not the scan region. Making it relative to the center of the selected region might make sense, but it could also be confusing. How about defaulting the focus to the center of the selected area with an offset ranging from -1 to +1? That would slow the scan a bit because it would require a refocus *after* the preview. Are scanners other than the Nikons able to set the position of the focus? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris wrote: > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film > in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky? Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Michael wrote: >Rob writes ... >> Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce >> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! >Supra 100 (!?) It's been claimed here that only Supra 400 is a new formulaiton specifically optimised for scanning. Supra 100 is apparently a previous emulsion rebadged? As far as apparent grain in sky is concerned, I haven't found Supra 100 to have any advantage over Fuji Superia 100 and the Fuji film is LOTS cheaper. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Edwni wrote: >How cheap is the Fuji? I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about >$2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra >100ASA scans very well. I can get Fuji Superia 24 (not 36) for about US$1.50. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.16 Available
Colin wrote: >Ed Hamrick wrote: >> I fixed a bug that caused colors (especially reds) to be >> excessively saturated. >Very interesting. My Canon FS2710 also produces excessive reds on objects >such as Santa Claus suits, or red baseball caps, for instance. They have >a clipped out look. Will the change in 7.0.16 affect the Canon as well Ed? And the LS30? I have also been posting about excessively saturated (and definitely clipped) reds on the LS30. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
jack wrote: >>Hopefully I'll be able to remove the fingerprint with some careful >>use of the cloning tool. >Digital ICE should solve this problem for you. No, it doesn't, because ing Nikon refuse to fix the jaggies problem. Until that is fixed, ICE is of exactly zero use to me. Sorry about the angry response, but then I am *very* angry about spending AUD$1600 on something which I had to buy a third party program to get it to work satisfactorily. It's a reflection on Nikon not ASF. I have still received no response from Nikon since their last email saying "we'll contact Japan about it". Nikonscan 3.0 doesn't resolve the issue. Thanks goodness for Vuescan or I'd be so annoyed I'd probably never buy another Nikon product. Regards, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: greatpixin,greatpixout
"Brian Bisset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And get yourself a proper Kodak target (Q-60 series or similar), and make it > the first frame every time, *especially* if you're shooting interiors under > mixed lighting conditions. Your scanner operator/printer will thank-you for > it (so will the client). Anyone have any idea where I'd procure one of these in Australia? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Ed wrote: >solves the problem. Having worked in a large company before, I >suspect that the information never got to the engineers who work on >the scanner software, and I suspect these engineers aren't even >aware of the problem. Exactly what I suspect. What is sad is that the sales and support people in other countries and Nikon's own management have insulated the engineers from being able to resolve the issue. Fixing it would result in a whole bunch of happier users who would be more likely to buy future products. As it is, I'll probably look to Polaroid next time. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Nikon jaggies was Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Art wrote: > "Please go away and leave us alone... we didn't create this > problem and its Japan's fault. If they gave a rats ass, > they would have fixed it long ago, since they've known > about the problem for a long time". I'm not convinced that the message has really got through to the programmers who are actually writing the code. I *am* convinced that people in Nikon know about the problem *and* the solution, since they've loaned Ed Hamrick Nikon scanners, and Ed has told them the solution. I'd have thought that the programmers would have attempted to address the problem in Nikonscan 3.0 if they'd actually been told about it. > I know this is an accurate translation because it is exactly > the line Epson and Honda and Roland gave me, and I've been > waiting for a "reply" for over 20 years on a couple of them. I'm disappointed you got a poor response from Roland. I know that the service department here in Australia was very proactive in resolving issues. They debugged a number of things which Japan hadn't fixed. But that was a long time ago when I worked with them. > If you really want some action on this, I suggest you > contact a lawyer or at least your consumer affairs > department. Now that might get Nikon's attention... in Japan! In fairness to the local distributors I would need to raise it with them before taking it to Consumer Affairs. I also seriously doubt that Consumer Affairs in Australia would want to pursue something that affects so few people and would require getting a response from Japan. The response from Maxwell Optics would probably be to send the unit back for "repair", even though I know that there is *nothing* they could do physically to fix the problem. What is required is a software fix to a hardware design fault. Ed's done it, Nikon should be able to. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Medium format in a 35mm scanner?
Greg wrote: >This is probably (another) dumb question. I shoot 95% 35mm, but >occasionally shoot 6x7cm. I am about to buy a 35mm scanner (I have been >sending film out for scans for the last year or so - Photo CD for most, >drum for the most important work), but wondered if anyone has been able >to reposition medium-format film into the film or transparency holder >and take four scans from the film (which would then be stitched together >in Photoshop). This would be impossible in most dedicated film scanners. The cheapest option I can think of would be a scanner such as the Epson Photo range which can scan larger film formats. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Q60, was greatpixin,greatpixout
"Mark T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So if you know anyone who looks after IT equipment, ask 'em.. Your average > business scanner user couldn't give a toss about how his/her scanner is > calibrated. :) Hm. All our scanners at work are HP. No targets. I could ask another guy who does tech support stuff though... Rob
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would anyone object if I removed the Long exposure pass > option from VueScan? No objection from me, although it was an interesting idea. Requires less patience than 8x multipass. :) Rob
Re: Nikon jaggies was Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In defense of the Japanese, I'd like to add the story about Corona and > Pinto: both cars had a bad tendency to explode and burn in a rear-end > collission. Was it "Cannonball Run" that featured a car just giving a Pinto the slightest touch and it exploded? 8^D Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need Help Deciding
DeVries wrote: > I'm in the market for a film scanner between US $500 and $1K. Doesn't the Polaroid SS4000 fit intot he top end of that range? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 35 plus and negs
Robert Smith wrote: > I an a newbie on this list and I need to know peoples > opinions on which is the best software for me to use > to scan negs with my sprintscan 35 plus You could give Vuescan a try for starters. Go to http://www.hamrick.com Registration is only US$40. Rob
filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
Someone recently gave PSP a plug on the list, and I was trying to remember the neatest features which PSP 7 has over Photoshop. Two which are extremely useful are: 1) The ability to rotate an image a fraction of a degree 2) The redeye tool. It allows you to replace the red eye reflection with a "fake" coloured iris and pupil, complete with reflection spot. There's lots of other great features - my favourite aspect of PSP is the visual layout of printing. I was astonished when I found out that Photoshop 5.5 didn't have an equivalent. On the down side - everything is forced into sRGB, and PSP doesn't support embedded profiles. Windows CMS is supported however. Rob PS If you get PSP 7 make sure you download the appropriate 7.02 patch.
RE: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
Laurie wrote: >Image=>rotate_canvas=>arbitrary" indicates the exact rotation >necessary to make the horizon horizontal ... to a hundredth of a >degree! In which version? Is it true for PS4, PS5, LE? I don't know. I am assuming that you are using PS6. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
Sorry, that was Michael's message I was referring to. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
Alan wrote: >Do you know what's in the 'patch'? I don't know *everything* that is in the patch, but I do know a number of critical bug fixes in it. These are mostly related to the use of the clipboard. If you try to copy and paste a large amount of data, it may crash PSP. I found that PSP would also crash if you use the salt and pepper filter on a large image, and some of the other photo editing tools. If you're using a demo of PSP, it's not worth the hassle, but if you have the full license it is definitely a good idea, especially if you're working with film scans. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction
Ramesh wrote: >Please suggest some books. Bruce Fraser posts to the Leben Epson list and I believe the title of his book is "Real World Photoshop". I'm not 100% sure, but if you want something from someone who knows a lot about things like colour management I'd definitely recommend a title by Bruce Fraser. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
"Harry Lehto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I scan an image containing black sky and bright stellar images with a > Nikon Coolscan IVED (=LS40) , then close to the edge of the field every > bright (saturated) stellar image has a faint ghost image separated from > the main image (by 20- 40 pixels). Dumb question; I presume they aren't in the source image as reflections in the telescope elements? I get similar ghost images when I photograph the moon. Otherwise presumably they must be reflections in the lens elements of the scanner. :-7 Rob
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
"John Matturri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious how you, or others, store their cds. I have some folders with CD slip-sheets which I'm storing them in. Keeps them in a much more compact state than normal jewel cases. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm happy to report that I've scanned and recorded to CD *all* my > significant negs and slides from 1949 to 1998--which were the ones I was > going for, archive-wise. Wow! I wish I had the time to scan a fraction of mine. Congrats! Keep in touch, Lynn! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
"Harry Lehto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The original slide are good with no apparent ghosts. They were actually > taken with 50mm and 300mm camera lenses. Checked with a good slide > projector and separately with a microscope that the originals are OK. OK, it sounds like some sort of aberration in the scanner lens system. Is there anyone near you with another film scanner you could send a sample slide to in order to test it? Maybe with a Polaroid scanner? Out of interest, does it make any difference if you insert the slide into the scanner the other way up? Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS-2000 VS LS-40
"Edwin Eleazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Version 3.1 of NikonScan will be out in the next week Hmm... I wonder if this might include some attempt at fixing the jaggies problem? Rob
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Ed wrote: >the focus distance until the contrast is maximized. The only real >option is the position of the scan line. But don't the Nikon scanners allow the user to choose an XY point on the frame as the focussing point? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: remove
Robert Wright wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Ken Hornbrook > To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:@harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net > If you wish to be removed from my mailing list, > please reply with the word "Remove" in the subject line. I think this would have to be done by Tony Sleep, since it has been sent to the list and replicated from there. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Batchscanning with vuescan
Bernhard wrote: > I am using Vuescan for scanning negatives and dia slides. [snip] > Unfortunately the red color on the negatives sometimes > gets so bright, that I cannot use the result any more. I've mentioned excessively saturated reds with the LS30 to Ed a couple of times. > If I am using the "usual" procedure instead for > scanning the negative one by one (not saving the raw > data), everything is working real fine. I forget the setting but there's a way in Vuescan to fix the exposure based on the first preview. Is this possibly what is happening? What version of Vuescan are you using? Try renaming the existing vuescan.ini and allowing the program to create a new default one. Then try a troublesome strip of film and see if it makes a difference. Also, try using a different colour space like Adobe RGB not sRGB. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
Am I the only one who has problems with the crop outline in Vuescan? I have been wondering why it is so incredibly difficult to position correctly. I *think* it's mostly due to one aspect of behaviour. Let's say I'm cropping an image in Paintshop Pro. I click and drag to create a rough outline using the crop tool. Then I drag the edges (zoomed to 1:1 if necessary) to the ideal position. If I grab the side of the crop box, I can only adjust the side. If I grab the corner I can move two side at once. If I click in the middle I can move the box without resizing. Vuescan appears to move the whole crop box sometimes when dragging one side. This makes getting the outline right frustrating or impossible. The autocrop doesn't always eliminate strips of black at the edges of a frame, and including them can greatly affect the exposure. Has anyone else experienced this? I'd have to say that the behaviour of the crop box outline is the most frustrating feature of Vuescan. Rob
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
Hi Ed! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try zooming into the image before dragging the crop outline. This helps a bit, but the crop box still has a tendency to jump around when releasing the mouse button after dragging. I don't want to *have* to use the zoom, as each step slows things down. The tendency to jump seems greatest for the top and bottom sides of the box, as well as when moving the whole box to the bottom extremity of the preview. > In addition, make sure you're using the latest version of > VueScan (7.0.21). It seems a little better but the problem is still there. Regards, Rob
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
"Joel Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yup, works for me. My Crop|Buffer setting is 2% (I think the default) and > that seems to work well for my full frame crops. A person could probably > increase this to 10% to make sure the black can't influence the auto values. The default 2% often doesn't work for me, so I have increased it to 5% and will check what difference it makes. Perhaps 5% should be the default? My main point wasn't about the exposure, it was about how difficult the Vuescan crop box is to place accurately - even after zooming - because dragging an edge seems to sometimes drag the whole box. 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
filmscanners: Size of scan files
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
Richard wrote: >You definitely can reset the crop outline in Photoshop. Or alter it. Easily. [snip] OK, as usual with Photoshop, there are lots of features which are there but not obvious or intuitive. You say "easily" and it is if you know how, but it's nowhere near as straightforward as the click and drag behaviour in PSP. I'm not saying that to encourage a religious war about software. Thanks for letting me know how it's done in PS - I'll have to try it out. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Size of scan files
Lynn wrote: > That sounds perfectly possible to me. Grain is a form of "texture," > and a textured backround will eat up a *lot* of memory (unless it's > mathmatical--which grain isn't, AFAIK). Exactly. Because the grain pattern is random, it doesn't compress well. I was just pointing out an advantage of a fine grained film like Provia which I hadn't realised before; that the higher resolution actually results in smaller file sizes. This is perhaps counter-intuitive. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Size of scan files
Richard wrote: > More information in the higher ISO film. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I would have said the opposite; that there is less information lost in *more* noise. > 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. No, I used it because it's a fast film and I didn't have a choice when buying a fuji disposible underwater camera. :) "Pretty darned good" is a relative thing. The grain is OK when printed on photographic paper in a lab, but it looks pretty darned awful when I scan it. >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. As I mentioned in my original post I know about compression algorithms etc. Where I disagree with you is on the definition of "information". Yes, the LZW TIFF of a Fuji 800 scan is bigger because there's more variation between pixels and therefore little compression is possible without loss. However I disagree that grain (or grain aliasing) necessarily constitutes useful "information". The print film is likely to have more data in terms of latitude, but a lot less in other respects. It's kind of like comparing a computer image of 320x200 pixels in 16 bit colour with another of 1024x768 in 8 bit colour. The first image can have a lot more tonal information, but the second has more clarity. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Lynn wrote: > Good points, John. One also has to ask what the point > of photography is if you can't show it to people, > i.e. publish it. One of my worst experiences with photography started out as a favour to a friend. Friends were involved in a Native American dance group, and asked if I could take some photos of a performance which could be used for promotional purposes. I went along, went backstage, when the performance was happening they specifically announced that I was the ONLY person allowed to take photos. I got the films processed and there are some lovely shots in there. Then other members of the dance group got angry with my friends for some reason and my friends left the group. The next thing I knew, I received a letter from a lawyer saying that I didn't take the photos in an official capacity and I was not allowed to use them in any way. So now I just feel like burning the films because I get depressed just thinking about the whole experience. I will *never* again take photographs in a situation like that without a signed release of some sort. If I could afford to, I'd take them to court just so that I could enjoy photographs that I took quite legitimately. The really sad part is that they never spoke to me about the photos before they went to the lawyer. If they had, I would have sold them the films just to be rid of it all for less than the lawyer would have charged. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Philippe wrote: > Say you have a portfolio of 35mm slides. On short notice you > are asked to scan two hundred of them and burn them onto CD, > low res. What would be a good scanner and workflow for > creating the actual low res JPEGs? What are good ways to make > FAST, DECENT, LOW RES SCANS of 35mm slides? I don't know of any scanner which reliably batch feeds lots of slides. Nikon made a feeder mechanism for the LS2000 but it was said to jam frequently. I haven't heard whether there's a reliable unit for the LS4000. > What's the best way, in your opinion, to make lots of low > res scans quickly? Use APS film. :) I was astonished when I got the adapter for my LS30 and was able to put a film in and walk away while the scanner scanned every frame. >*** Does the scanner you recommend come bundled with software that would >allow me to crop and set Auto Levels without entering Photoshop? The scan >doesn't have to look great, but it does need to be cropped and have some >kind of levels set automatically; an "auto levels" option would be great. >Maybe the scanner you have in mind doesn't come with a good software bundle, >but will work with Vuescan, for instance. You might still be able to get an LS30 somewhere, or the LS40 isn't horrifically expensive. You'd have to feed the slides manually, but it's quicker than the mechanisms on the Canon or Polaroid scanners. Using Vuescan you could automate most of the process of getting a decent low res scan, and with Vuescan set to a lower resolution, the Nikon will scan faster. If the films are in strips rather than mounted, your options are even better. The film strip feeder means you can batch scan strips. The newest Nikons have an adapter which is supposed to be able to scan an entire film provided it hasn't been cut down! > *** The cheaper, the better. If it's in the area of $150, > we may be able to get 2 or 3 of them, so if one scanner is > being used, a second will be available. I seriously doubt you will get "decent" results out of anything that cheap. There are flatbeds out there where you can put a large number of slides in a tray and batch scan them, but I don't know how good the results would be compared to a Nikon filmscanner. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Ektachrome E100VS bad?
Joel wrote: >landscape. The E100VS can be a little OTT in really warm light I tried one roll after the lab raved about it. Some photos I took of a sunset have saturated in quite bizarre ways. It's interesting, but I still prefer Fuji films. Another thing which was a problem was that the film ended up with circular marks from the chemistry beading in the sprocket holes them drying away from them. The lab said that Kodak film did this, but Fuji film didn't. I'm sticking to Provia 100F. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request
John wrote: >Will it only overwrite a folder on the "C" drive if it is named C:\Vuescan? >Will it ignore any renamed folder ? Vuescan always installs into c:\vuescan. It has no effect on other copies. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Choice of film scanner
Chris wrote: > I am particularly interested in speed, being able to place > an APS film in the machine, press go (perhaps after some > callibration) and the whole film is scanned. I have a Nikon LS30 with the APS adapter and it can do just what you describe. It's wonderful - except I don't have an APS camera. :) The LS40 would presumably do it as well, with slightly better results. I don't know if the Canon, Minolta or Acer scanners have APS adapters. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: The whole frame
Peter wrote: >I am annoyed that my Nikon LS-30 can't scan a whole 35mm frame. Peter, is the amount lost significant? I mean it must be to you since you're annoyed about it, but in my experience I can generally scan more of the image on the frame than has ever appeared on a photographic print. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ?
Art wrote: >I don't know what the long term consequences might be, but someone has >been using his Minolta Dual II turned 90 degrees so the film holder is >vertical to avoid this problem. He told me he was doing this for a while. The Nikon LS30 (possibly others I don't know) can be used flat or vertically. There are feet fitted in two sides of the case. I'm using mine flat so the film goes in vertically. This may also help to keep dust off the CCD. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: The whole frame
Peter wrote: > Fair question Rob -- the amount lost is small of course. > But I like to assemble the elements of the picture within > the whole frame before the exposure, and I like the > evidence of that to show in the print. Fair enough. I confess I've never done a test to find out exactly what the comparison is between what appears in my camera's viewfinder and what appears no the film. I try not to crop too tight in the viewfinder just in case. Maybe it's a reasonable assumption to think that the edge of the viewfinder is actually the edge of what goes on the film, but I'm not certain of it, so I don't take the risk. But having taken photos the way you did, I can see why you would want to scan the entirety of the image out to the border. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
"Walter Bushell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing > multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every > time? If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
"Walter Nowotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably > cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied > with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before > scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight > scratches across the whole film strip. Is the unit under warranty? See if you can send just the SA-20 back for repair or replacement, and in the meantime use the filmstrip holder and the MA-20. The SA-20 must be faulty if it is scratching strips of 4 frames. It's designed to handle strips of up to 6 frames. I've never had the SA-20 scratch my negs. All the scratches on the negs are from mishandling by the lab technicians when they originally processed the film. :( Rob
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
"James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the > SCSI BIOS on boot up. It works with my LS30 and the Scanjet IIIc. Scanners shouldn't be a problem. The most likely devices that would need to be seen at SCSI BIOS load would be hard drives. Someone else suggested selecting the SCSI card in the device list and then clicking refresh. This seems to be more specific and slightly quicker. You can get to the device list fastest by right-clicking on "My Computer" and selecting "Properties". Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
James wrote: >Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than >my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when >you put the film adaptors in. > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! Yes. The scanner is readjusting the mechanism for the new adaptor. My LS30 does the same thing. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Richard wrote: >I could be wrong, but doesn't Acer make the Polaroid scanner, and if >so, would not the drivers from this machine work on Acer. Microtek assemble (OEM) the SS4000 for Polaroid. Not Acer. The drivers for the Artix 4000 will not work on the SS4000. The hardware is the same but the BIOS is different. Anyway, there's no relationship I'm aware of with Acer. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave wrote: >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this >has been improved, and if so, by how much. What problems did the old scanners have with excessive dust and scratches? I haven't seen anything with my LS30 I'd describe as a problem with respect to dust and scratches on chromogenic film. The only problem I've had with the the Nikon I'd describe as a fault is the jaggies produced by Nikonscan (which Vuescan cures). Do you mean the collimated light highlighting dust and scratches? I wouldn't expect that to change either. > In addition, I'd like to know if performance *with* ICE has > improved when scanning Kodachrome and B&W films. Presumably the behaviour would be identical with Kodachrome and B&W film because the behaviour with IR is the same. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
"Nick Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my order for the Epson 1280. Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290 elsewhere? Rob
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust > than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 > and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly > the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have > excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost > any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get > blurred. The improvement in sharpness going from the Epson Filmscan 2400dpi scanner to the Nikon LS30 2700dpi scanner was astonishing. I wonder if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the image? Rob
OT Epsons again was Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The 780, 880 and 980 which are 2880 dpi 4 color (780 is new to me, so > I'm jumping to conclusions here) In Oz there's also a 480 and 680. > (in which case, I made an error in an earlier posting as I indicated > the 1280 as an upgrade to the 1270. I believe the 1290 is the upgrade > to the 1270, and the 1280 is likely an upgrade to the 1200 at 2880 dpi) The 1290 is a new version of the 1270. It's 6 colour, same inks, 2880dpi. I believe they have also modified the chip system to try to prevent third party vendors providing inks. Rob
filmscanners: Infrared scan
I just tried scanning a slide and outputting a colour TIFF and an IR one. It was very educational. Any sort of mark, scratch or dust spot is utterly black in the IR scan. Some of the image is also visible as is some of the grain, which probably explains why the image is softened by ICE. I haven't tried a non-chromogenic film yet, or kodachrome. Rob
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Epson printers (Was: Olympus P-400 printer ???)
"Tom Christiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the advantage of 2880dpi lengthwise compared to 1440dpi? >From what I've seen it means less visible dithering and the result is closer to a photographic continuous tone. > Some people claim that you shouldn't send pictures to the printer using max > resolution as this uses too much ink. What's your opinion on this? It probably does use a lot of ink. Decent results can be achieved on a 1290 even at 720dpi on the driver due to the 6 inks. But the best result will be at 2880. Rob
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon and ICE feature
"AR Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just discovered with Nikon IV that ICE (normal setting, at least) will act > as ROC (color restoration) if you have an image that has a dominating color, > let's say a green forest or a field of yellow flowers. I've had a lot of trouble in the past with Nikonscan and photos of whales where the dominant colour was blue. The software neutralised the colours to B&W! With Vuescan it's not an issue - just set the colour to "neutral" and it's fine. Rob
filmscanners: Infrared scans on different films
As a followup, here's a basic comparison between several kinds of films and their behaviour with the infrared (IR) channel. The thumbnails are tiny I know, but they are big enough to show the important differences. In IR, the K64 slide shows quite a bit of image detail, especially on high contrast edges. Ilford FP4+ is very opaque to IR, with the result that it's hard to see the dust and scratches for the image information. Fujichrome 100 is very transparent to IR, so that dust stands out in very high contrast, the latter being opaque. Scratches produce a much less distinct image in IR (there is the beginning of a scratch 1/3 of the way up the right hand side of the 1:1 sample). This means that high contrast edges and scratches "look" very similar in IR, and probably accounts for some softening of the image when using IR cleaning algorithms. Some grain still shows and this also probably causes some softening. I also scanned a frame of Fuji Superia 400 and the results were similar to Fujichrome 100, but Superia is probably even more transparent to IR. This explains why colour neg films or chromogenic B&W work well with ICE. What the scan of FP4 makes me realise is that if you have a lot of B&W (non-chromogenic) film to scan, a Nikon scanner is probably a poor choice. The Nikon will highlight every speck and scratch, and make for a lot of spotting. However, for C41 process films, the IR channel is a life-saver. BTW in my minimal experience with Kodachrome, Vuescan cleans K64 scans quite well, without the artifacts of ICE (I can't speak about ICE3). In the above tests, the "clean" filter in Vuescan had no noticeable effect on spots in the Ilford FP4+, but then it also did *not* have any damaging effect. >From these results I'm guessing that it's quite easy to make a very effective dust filter, but much harder to make a very effective scratch filter which doesn't soften the image. The tests were done with a Nikon LS30 and Vuescan 7.0.21. Rob <>
Re: filmscanners: Infrared scan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I just tried scanning a slide and outputting a colour TIFF and an >> IR one. It was very educational. Any sort of mark, scratch or >> dust spot is utterly black in the IR scan. > If you look closer, you'll see that the dust spots aren't pure black, > but instead are just quite dark. Um, OK, I didn't bother checking out the actual RGB values. In the Fujichrome slide, the lowest value in the infra-red channel was only 33. After conversion to 8 bits per channel of greyscale, anyhow. While my comment above was not scientifically correct, I was simply pointing out that the effect of the IR channel with normal ektachrome or C41 film was to make the image almost invisible and the dust *very* visible. This makes it easy to use as a mask. > > Some of the image is also visible as is some of the > > grain, which probably explains why the image is softened by ICE. > No, this has nothing to do with the softening in the ICE > algorithm. This is just a flaw in the algorithm (it does > unnecessary smoothing). Which leads me to wonder how ICE determines the difference between a scratch and a darker pattern in the latent image or grain. But I don't need an explanation. :) I'm not planning to reverse engineer it! What this exercise *does* make me wonder is whether it would be worthwhile separating the dust filter from the scratch filter (not to mention the grain filter, but we've been there before :). Judging by the opacity of objects in the IR channel it looks to me like dust (or completely removed emulsion) would be the easiest thing to remove without affecting the rest of the image. Thanks for the feedback Ed! It is as I mentioned earlier, educational. :) I hope I answered the question which was asked on the list recently about ICE and B&W film - that it's unlikely to *ever* work unless the film is chromogenic. Maybe someone will come up with another method of detecting surface defects like bouncing light (or another EMR) at an angle off the surface of the emulsion. Who knows? Then again, by the time such technology was developed, digital cameras may have reached a stage of development where we'll give up on film. :) Rob (who still doesn't have a digital camera)
Re: filmscanners: Colour fix problem
Re: filmscanners: Colour fix problemRichard N. Moyer wrote: > 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. The colour correction tool in PSP 7 works very well. I haven't tried it on this particular image, but I have used it extensively on restoring colours in images scanned from faded prints. It's called "auto colour balance" and it's the first of the buttons in the photo toolbar. Just set the colour temperature and it does the rest. Rob
filmscanners: Vuescan crop box goes mad. Film at 11
I have no idea why, but Vuescan's crop box has gone loopy on me. I'm using 7.0.21. I've been attempting to scan some frames of 35mm colour neg film using the motorised film strip adapter in my Nikon LS30. I've been using the zoom function in Vuescan to adjust the edges to include the maximum amount of the image without going over the edge of it. For the first couple of strips of film, this was fine, but the crop box now won't behave at all. Here's a summary of what it's doing; 1) If I click in the middle of the crop box and try to drag the box, the top edge of the crop box jumps down to where the cursor is and tries to drag the top of the box. Before clicking, the cursor looks like a hand. After, it looks like a corner drag arrow. 2) If I try to drag the left edge of the crop box, pointing at the edge changes the cursor to a left-right arrow, but clicking and dragging makes the top of the crop box jump down again as above. 3) If I try to drag the bottom edge up, the top jumps down again as above. 4) If I try to drag the right hand edge, same thing. 5) At one point I was able to drag the top edge up, but every time I went back to the preview tab, the top edge bounced back down a couple of mm. This lost me about the top 1/5 of the image. As a result, I can't use the mouse to set the crop box at all. Thinking something may have gone screwy in the INI file, I deleted it, and soft-rebooted the computer to ensure there was no previous remnant of the program in memory. The behaviour hasn't changed. I've managed to get the crop box maximised by manually adjusting the measurements in mm in the crop tab, then looking back at the preview tab. This was initially confusing because with a normal landscape image, the "x" and "y" values are reversed - ie. x is the vertical measurement on the screen and y is the horizontal. To Vuescan, a portrait layout is "no" rotation, so most photos require left or right rotation, and afterward the relationship of x and y gets confusing. Part of the problem seemed to be caused by large xy offsets. I had to experiment with reducing the offsets before I could get the crop box right. I'm not sure how consistently the offset values behave - with the image rotated to the right, the offsets seem to be from the top and right edges so in portrait they would be from the left (x) and top (y)? Zooming doesn't seem to help. Also I've noticed that when zoomed it doesn't seem to be possible to see the bottom edge of the crop area. The bottom edge of the crop box can't be seen with a full 35mm frame zoomed. One small unrelated suggestion for vuescan; I would personally find it handy if the final output display (the "scan" tab) was shown immediately *before* writing the crop to disk. As it is, I have to sit around for ages before I get to see what the final crop actually looks like, instead I'm looking at the previous scan. Has anyone else experienced this strange behaviour of the crop box, or is it only me? Does anyone have any idea how to stop it? Rob PS Another misbehaviour of my PC *seems* to be related to Vuescan. After using Vuescan and closing it, an amount of about 20MB of RAM doesn't seem to be freed. More importantly, Win98SE won't shut down and switch the computer off. Instead it hangs at the "Your computer is shutting down" splash screen. On reboot (requiring power off or hard reset) the computer bluescreens with a 0E error just at the point where the desktop comes up. Hitting enter to close the program (god knows *which*), the dekstop comes up OK. If I restart (using shutdown/restart) at this point, the computer restarts normally without the bluescreen. If I shutdown instead, it shuts down and switches off. I was wondering what was triggering the bluescreen as it seemed random, but I'm now convinced it's something about Vuescan's use of memory.
Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)
> on 6/12/01 5:41 AM, Dan Honemann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > How about the new Iomega Peerless portables (10 and 20GB, USB and Firewire)? > > Anyone tried these yet? My only comment here is future proofing. It's more likely you'll have a drive which can read a CDR in 5 years time than an Iomega drive... Rob
filmscanners: Films for scanning was RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Dan wrote: > What are the best color and b&w films in terms > of scanning? This is a question which I began attempting to quantify at least in the sense of a guide if not actually a scientific way. Unfortunately it's an expensive and time consuming exercise to test every possible film in the same conditions so a comparison can be made. > From what I've read thus far, it sounds like > Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color, and > the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) > for b&w. Are there others? Using the LS30 I've tried Fuji Superia 100, Superia 400, Superia 800, Kodak Gold 100 and Kodak Supra 100, as well as two varieties of Konica print 100ASA film. I'm told that Supra 100 is an older emulsion rebadged and not a new formulation. Supra 400 is apparently a new formulation which has been optimised in some fashion for scanning, but I haven't had the opportunity to try it as I can only buy it in packs of 5. Fuji Superia 100, Superia 400 and Kodak Supra 100 all scan reasonably well. I prefer the colour response of Fuji films (OK so I actually like saturated colour :). However, particular areas of images seem to be problematic such as bright skies which seem to show up grain (or apparent grain) more. Kodak Gold 100 seems to have a ridiculous amount of grain. The Konica films didn't seem to scan as well as the Fuji films or Supra. I have access to a SS4000 but haven't had the time to try selections of the same films in the Polaroid to see if the aliasing behaviour is improved. Apparent grain with Superia 800 is absolutely appalling, but it's still possible to get useful low resolution images out of it. Scanning some 800 last night I found it extremely difficult to use the curves tool in PS because there's so much variation in the pixels due to grain aliasing. Clicking in an area that looks black (not zoomed 1:1) with the black eyedropper produces enormous shifts in colour and brightness with fractional movement of the mouse. Essentially you should expect the maximum printable size of the image to decrease with the increase in film speed. This is just the same as using an enlarger. You want bigger prints, you use a slower film. I have to scan some recent photos taken with T400CN to check out whether the scanner sees more apparent grain than the enlarger. I've done extreme enlargements of T400 with the enlarger and the grain is amazingly fine. All the slower slide films I've scanned produce far less aliasing or apparent grain than print films of similar speeds. The only slide film I've scanned which had difficult grain was Kodak 320T, but the photos were not terribly well exposed (existing light photos of a concert). > Also, if one is planning ultimately to scan and maintain files > in digital format (and print from there), are there any > advantages left to shooting transparencies as opposed to > negatives--given that the latter has so much more exposure > latitude? Or does the finer resolution of slide film still > make this the preferred emulsion when scanning? As Tony pointed out elsewhere, you have a fixed reference with slide film but it's much more subjective with adjusting a neg scan. The big thing about slides for me is the vastly reduced apparent grain. It's a personal thing, but I'd prefer to lose a bit of shadow detail and maybe even highlight detail to end up with an image that is much cleaner in the end. I guess that's an important point; there's no one "true" answer to which is better. The answer will depend a lot on what your personal tastes are, and what kind of photos you're taking. If this wasn't true, there would be a lot less types of film on the market. I'd still like to post some more film comparisons on my web site, but I'd probably need to figure out a more rigid and reproducible procedure for taking the test images to avoid criticism of the methods. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Rafe wrote: >Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't >bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite. I was under the impression that there was little if any difference between the current generation Superia 100 and Reala. When Fuji announced the extra colour layer, it seemed to point to the same technology. Can anyone confirm this? I haven't attempted resolution tests with Supra 100 to have some sort of meaningful comparison, but to my eye there was little difference in grain between Superia 100 and Supra 100 which made it hard to justify a premium price for the Kodak film. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)
Bob Kehl wrote: > I think you're absolutely right about CD's having more > format longevity than Iomega products. But I figure > in five years, or maybe 10, we'll have be able to get > 10 terabyte?? raid arrays with mirroring for a few > hundred bucks and we'll transfer all our Iomega's or > CD's or DVD's or whatever to live online hot swappable > secure storage. (how much is a terabyte, anyways). Which is fine provided that your Iomega drive still works, and the company is still in existence, and it's supported in your OS. My point was more that DVD drives will be with us for a while, and they can read CDR, which gives CDR a reasonable technological longevity. > My point being that CD's are a good bet for long > term storage if you don't mind having a few > thousand of them around. They're easier to put in folders than other types of high density storage (except DVD-RAM). While others have said that the slip-sheet method of storing a CDR is more likely to scratch them, how often will you actually take them out? > (You can't fit very many 4000dpi TIF scans on a CD). I can't even get 24 raw scans on a CD from my LS30. > But maybe there's a better short term solution to > get us over the hump waiting for high capacity > storage to get as cheap as CD's have become. Maybe, but the cost per MB of CDR is hard to beat at the moment. Someone else suggested setting up hard drives in hot swap configuration which is probably an excellent idea. I prefer to have my data on a write-once medium though. Kind of like making tape backups. But what's right for you is quite likely to what is right for me. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Films for scanning was Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
"Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off, Supra is a C41 print film. Superia, > as I recall, as an E6 positive film. Fuji's > "equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps. No. Superia is a C41 print film. At least in Australia, all the Fuji retail (non pro) colour print films are called Superia. You're thinking of Velvia, Astia, Provia or Sensia. Dunno what Fuji's obsession with "ia" on the end of the name is. Maybe it's significant in Japanese. > 2nd -- Supra 100 is pretty cheap when purchased > from BH Photo. Which is great if you happen to live in the USA. Here in Australia I can buy Superia 100 at just about any supermarket, K-mart or Target store, and it's cheaper than Supra. > I get it in 10-packs from BH Photo, for something > like $35 a box. That's for 36-exposure rolls (the only length > offered.) I forget what I paid for my box of five rolls. I think rolls of 36 exposure Superia are around US$2.50. Rolls of 24 are relatively cheaper depending on how and where you buy them. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of Supra. I recommend trying it and comparing. For me it's not worth the expense. I still have a roll or two I haven't used yet. I'd love to try Supra 400 because it's supposedly optimised for scanning, but I don't want to buy 5 rolls of it. FWIW I scanned a frame off a recent roll of T400CN and in the midtones there is no significant grain visible at 2700dpi. There's something like grain in the shadows but as it's a C41 B&W neg film I'm not sure how to label it. The grain appears to vary with the exposure to light, so the dark areas are more grainy than the light areas. I exposed the roll at EI250 rather than the rated 400. Colour C41 film grain doesn't seem to vary as much with exposure to light. I'll have to check some more. Rob
filmscanners: Films for scanning
Tony wrote: > Try Superia 800 with the SS4000 as a matter of some urgency :-) :( Drat. Now I have to make some time after working hours. I'll have to collect together a variety of types of film and try at least a frame from each. > IME film type preferences under discussion here are 90% > interactions between scanner and film, and the nice > thing about 4000ppi is that an awful lot of the problems > seen at ~2700ppi suddenly cease to exist. Which makes me disappointed I didn't wait longer and get a SS4000 as I'd originally planned. If this is true, why did the scanner manufacturers choose 2700dpi if it's so prone to aliasing? Or are they clueless and simply picked it as a reasonable resolution to get an A4 print at 300dpi? This could get expensive... Rob PS Any idea what is happening to your subject lines, Tony? Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Films for scanning
Rafe wrote: >Look at the bright side. You can buy a used SprintScan >Plus on eBay right now for about 1/4 of what a new one >used to cost, about 2 years ago. If you happen to live in the USA. :) Still AFAIK the retail price of the SS4000 has come down from its original price. I'm not sure how the slide of the AUD has affected the local cost though. Anyway, I'll make the time soon to try a variety of films on the SS4000 at work and see how the results compare with the LS30. I'm particularly interested to see what happens to the grain. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: films for scanning
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IME film type preferences under discussion here are 90% interactions > between scanner and film, and the nice thing about 4000ppi is that an > awful lot of the problems seen at ~2700ppi suddenly cease to exist. Which is useful to know but I for one can't afford to run out and buy a SS4000 or an LS4000. I'm stuck with my LS30 for now. It therefore makes sense to find the films on the market that give me the best results. So far the only two I'm really impressed with are Provia 100F and T400CN. If I am prepared to be less demanding, most slide films give me results I'm happy with as long as the slides are not too dark or high in contrast. For consumer print films in specific situations, the Fuji Superia range are cheap, easily available and give quite good results. Silver based B&W films do not scan at all well with the LS30; at least none I've tried do. A scanner with a more diffuse light source would probably be better, especially given that ICE doesn't work with such films. Tony, I'd be interested to know if your comments about 4000dpi hold true for the Nikon 4000dpi scanners, because from what you said, the overheads of spotting scans from a SS4000 can be significant. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Films for scanning
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In terms of US $$, you have the same access to eBay > prices as everyone else, right? The cost of shipping makes ebay pricing irrelevent. I saw some unbelievable prices for Epson printers for example, but by the time you ship it, pay GST on import, and get a power converter from 240V 50Hz to 120V 60 Hz you might as well buy locally. You also get a useable warranty if you buy locally. > But the sharp decline in used-scanner prices is for real. I don't doubt it. > IMHO, eBay is a wonderful resource for photographers > on a budget. One of the advantages for those who live in a market as large as the USA. Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner
Nicholas Hartmann wrote: >I have spent 25 years with B&W photography learning to make 11x14 >selenium-toned fiber prints that I like a lot. My kit consists of a 35mm >rangefinder camera with a few very good lenses, and Kodak TMax 400 film. I suggest you should take some negs and try them on various scanners. IMO that's the only way you'll know whether you can get enough data out of the film to reproduce the images you want. There may be people on the list who could help out with providing access to a scanner or scanning a frame or two for you. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Diffused scanners...
Marvin wrote: >At 04:43 AM 6/14/01, Rob Geraghty wrote in another thread (films for scanning): >>Silver based B&W films do not scan at all well with the LS30 > Often, I believe we are too concerned with overkill in specs. > Rob's remark triggered a question in my mind. Assuming you > are satisfied with 1024 pixel width on a computer monitor [snip] Marvin, could you possibly paraphrase the question? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. > I am reminded of the remark of the master photographer > that heard someone complain about the grain in their > prints. His remark was: "then...make smaller prints." Actually with the LS30 and silver based B&W film the problem seems to be dynamic range, not so much grain. One particular roll of FP4 I tried produced horribly posterised results in Nikonscan; it simply couldn't get enough data in 8 bits of monochrome. Vuescan is better since it accesses all 10 bits per channel the hardware produces, but I think more bits and a brighter light source are probably needed. Tony Sleep has mentioned about aliasing in silver films in the past. Given the poor results I got initially, I haven't persisted with trying to scan such films, but stuck to T400CN instead, or printed them with an enlarger. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: films for scanning
Tony wrote: > I probably shouldn't say this, but I have used > Superia800 quite a lot with the SS4000 and am > amazed how insignificant grain is. At A4 from > an Epson, it's there, just, but you really only > notice a relative lack of tonal refinement > compared to slower films. Gah. I'll definitely have to scan one of the frames of Fuji 800 taken in full daylight and compare the grain to the rest of the most recent film. I just processed a roll from a disposible underwater camera. The underwater shots look fine scanned at 2700dpi and reduced to screen resolutions, but the grain is very obvious. Clearly they are underexposed compared to photos exposed in normal daylight. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000? Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone know whether 3.1 attempts to fix the jaggies problem, or is it still reading data in 64K blocks? Nikonscan 3.0 showed no difference; still jaggies galore. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No problems over here with NikonScan 3.1. Well, at least it works on the 8000. Has anyone tried it on the LS30 or LS2000? Are there jaggies? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - illegal ops?
John & Anne Mahany wrote: > I am having trouble with all versions of Vuescan since > V7-0-27 and including V7-1 Opening, or rather, trying > to open the program gives a series of "Illegal Operation" > boxes in Vuescan.exe. What scanner and OS are you using? Rob
Re: filmscanners: films for scanning?
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > of Fuji 800 taken in full daylight > Best to rate at 640 IME, it helps keep grain under control, and cleans up > the shadows appreciably. I'll bear that in mind if I shoot a roll in the SLR. Unfortunately with disposible cameras I have no control over anything! :) (none of the newer underwater cameras I'm aware of allow manual setting of the ISO; they all use DX coding. Probably an older Nikonos would, so maybe that's something to bear in mind but if and when I get a "real" underwater camera I'll be using it with a strobe and slower film. I don't think anyone makes a housing for my Pentax) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - illegal ops?
"John & Anne Mahany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Win 98SE and SS4k. However, I don't think the scanner is relevant because > the "Illegal operations" box comes up instantly I click on "open". I presume you have the scanner switched on before you boot the PC. Vuescan should still start even with the scanner off; it will just allow you to scan from disk. > Strangely, V7-0-25 works perfectly .. .. .. Sounds odd to me. Vuescan 7.1 seems to work OK on my computer with the LS30 and Win98SE. I think Ed may be the only one who will have an answer for this one. Have you tried reinstalling the OS level driver for the SS4K? It sounds like there's a corrupted DLL somewhere, but it doesn't explain why 7.0.25 works. Rob
filmscanners: Underwater pictures was Re: filmscanners: films for scanning?
Tony wrote: > Ewa Marina make 'plastic bag' type housings which > will fit almost anything, good for down to 15m ISTR. I've looked at getting one of these to try with my Olympus compact camera, but it's likely to work well at anything more than a metre or two because of the water pressure. If anything pushes on the Olympus' retractable flash, the camera shuts down. The problem with the Pentax would likely be focussing accuracy through the bag and friction against the bag stopping the lens motors from working correctly. In any case I haven't succeeded in finding anywhere that can get stock of the bag housings. The bigger problem with taking photos underwater is light. Red is lost very rapidly, and the only way to get the proper colours back is to use strobes. At this point I just want a basic underwater camera so I'm looking at the Sealife Reefmaster which is a compact camera in a housing and should be about AUD$500 (US$250). I will buy it initially without an external strobe and add the strobe later. The camera is pressure rated to about 50m I think. I am also considering a trip to Japan, and if I went there I may be able to get a Nikonos at a reasonable price. What does this have to do with scanning? The disposible underwater cameras use 400ASA or 800ASA film and are pretty useless below 10 metres. My experience with the Fuji 800ASA camera is that even though it's only rated to 3 metres it works down to almost 10 metres, but in average conditions the photos end up very grainy when scanned. Some digital cameras (eg. Sony) have underwater housings, but if you flood it you're losing a $1500 digicam instead of a $200 compact camera. Tony, I'll take your word for it that Fuji 800 is great when exposed at EI650 but in the low light conditions where I've tried it, the results are poor when scanned. It's cool to be able to take photos at all with some of the situations that Fuji 800 makes possible, but I generally find the grain objectionable. I just need to save up for that dedicated underwater camera. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Lynn wrote: > The old, slower lenses show their "stuff," and the smaller format > tends to drop some of the detail. This leads me to think that the > lensatics and medium of the target picture is *still* more > important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is > competent in the first place. I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the autofocus is spot on, it doesn't seem to get close to the 50mm in sharpness. On the other hand, the 50mm seems to have a bad case of red colour fringing which is very noticeable when scanned. Anyway, my point is that scanning has shown me how important the quality of the lenses can be. You can't expect stunning results out of the scan if the quality of the image isn't there in the first place. I can't help wondering how much of the "problem" with scanner softness is actually softness of the image on the film. Until I can get hold of a really good fixed focal length lens and take a few photos with a tripod, I don't think I'll know for sure. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Peter wrote: > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides > though. I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction levels because of the nature of the list. People post most often when they have a problem, so it looks like nobody is happy. > The rest of people probably own drum scanners or do > not own scanners at all. Ignorance is bliss? :) > I would expect more input from people owning scanners > in $600-$1500 price range. It is unfortunate. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, because there's no previous text for reference. Harking back to the post which started this thread, I think there's been a lot of useful feedback. As far as my LS30 is concerned, it's a great scanner with certain limitations. Unfortunately one of those limitations has been a bug in the Nikon software which causes misalignment of scan lines. Using Vuescan (which I only found out about through this forum) the scans have no such problem. The other limiting factor of the LS30 is grain aliasing due to interference between film grain and the CCD array sampling pattern. This issue seems to be more noticeable on the LS30 than other 2700dpi scanners purportedly due to the collimated nature of the LED light source, but also I believe because the Nikon scanner has much sharper focus than many other scanners. Having an infrared channel is a godsend unless you have a LOT of time to spend spotting scans. While I'm sure everyone would like to think that they look after their films, scanning has a tendency to show up the slightest speck of dust. The automated cleaning in Vuescan, or ICE in Nikonscan makes scanning a LOT easier with a minor loss of sharpness. I have made some excellent scans with the LS30. LS30 scans of some of my photos have been used in a commercial magazine. If I am a vocal member of the list, it's because to me US$800 (AUD$1600) is a significant investment in hardware; my SLR with a 28-80 zoom only cost US$400. I want to get the most out of that investment, and I can't afford to simply sell it second hand to run out and buy a newer one. Most of the hassles I've had with film scanning have related to finding out the limitations of the hard, software, colour management, and even more importantly the limitations of 35mm films. The simplest piece of advice I think I could give anyone is to make sure your photos are as sharp as you can make them, with the exposures as accurate as possible, on the finest grain film you can afford. At the end of the day, the quality of the source material will determine a lot about the quality of the scanned result. Choosing a scanner has a lot to do with what the buyer wants to do with the results. There's no single answer that is right for everyone. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Dan wrote: > To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon > image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the > Leafscan is clear. Must be something wrong with my monitor at work. The differences look very subtle to me. Someone else made a good point though - how long did the leafscan take to produce the scan compare to the Nikon? How long from holding the piece of film to having the TIFF file on the computer? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Trying Nikonscan 3.1
I've just tried Nikonscan 3.1 on my LS30 with a slide and a frame of Fuji Superia 100. Please bear in mind that's just two frames of film, so it's hardly exhaustive. I scanned the same frames using Vuescan 7.1 to produce 48bit colour and 16bit IR files of the same frames. Here's what I found... o Good news! No jaggies so far. But I have yet to try any of the frames which were always a problem before. o Nikonscan is way slower in the actual scanning process than Vuescan. The only reason it was faster at getting an image from itself to Photoshop is that it's TWAIN and dumped the image straight in. Even so it's probably slower overall. I have no idea why focussing and exposure adjustment are so much slower in Nikonscan than Vuescan. o GEM and ROC are disabled. Possibly they work better with 14 bits from the newer scanners, but mostly I expect it's to encourage people to upgrade. :) o Dust and scratch removal in Nikonscan and Vuescan was interesting to compare. Small scratches in some cases were minimised better by Nikonscan, but generally the two programs were similar here. Interestingly, Vuescan was better at removing some large spots - they disappeared completely but were still around in Nikonscan. Both programs seemed equally effective at dust removal. o Colour - bizarre results! The slide scan looked nice in Nikonscan but closer investigation showed more colour and shadow detail in the Vuescan output. This isn't necessarily surprising since on the LS30 Vuescan delivers 10bits per channel instead of only 8 from Nikonscan. With the slide, both programs produced nice results easily. Nikonscan was a bit quicker in terms of setting up the scan, but the end result from Vuescan was better. With Superia 100, the difference was staggering. The output from Nikonscan was oversaturated (and this coming from me - I like saturation generally, but here the colours were really un-natural) and slightly posterised due to the bit depth loss. Tonal shading in the Vuescan image was much smoother, and although the image looked flat initially, autolevels and autocontrast in PS quickly fixed it. So the Vuescan image required more tweaking, but the end result was far better than the Nikonscan output. o Interface - Nikonscan has changed quite a bit in the way it is laid out, but the tools are actually quicker to get to. I am still at a loss as to why it defaults to 1350dpi instead of 2700dpi. Fingers crossed that the jaggies have gone! I'm impressed with the improvements in Nikonscan 3.1. However, for the LS30, Vuescan is still my program of choice. With other scanners that output more bits like the LS2000 or more recent models, the differences may be more subtle. Rob PS I notice mention in the readme of two additional film carriers - one for 16mm film and one for medical slides. Has anyone seen/tried these? The latter one could be handy for staff at the hospital where I work
Re: filmscanners: Skin tones
"John Bradbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a raw scan file but its 74 meg at 2700 resolution! > I can reduce the res to give a smaller file. Is that OK? You'd need to crop it down to a smaller area. You also need to enable compression on the raw file. Rob
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I'm very pleased that you've separated the 'ice' and 'gem' features. Seconded! I was intrigued to find that the ICE feature was a binary option. Earlier versions of Vuescan gave me the impression that it was a variable effect. Rob
OT Discussion was Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Guys, could we please take the LED discussions off the list? While they may be interesting to the engineers amongst us, I don't think they're of much interest to those who are subscribed to discuss filmscanning? I think we can all agree that the mechanical components of a scanner are more likely to fail than the LEDs, and the LEDs are likely to outlast the useful life of the rest of the scanner hardware. If you disagree - please email me *off* the list. :) Rob
