filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: focus problems with LS2000
David wrote: With Vuescan I can do everything except get a sharp (focused) output when using the SF200. Try changing the focus option in Vuescan to Always instead of auto or preview. Do NOT do this if you're doing multiple passes - on my LS30 this results in a different focus for each pass and fuzzes the result. On the LS2000 this may not happen as the multiscanning is single pass. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: CD from Scanner
Burt wrote: What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying from the scanner and that my best procedure with the Adaptec software was to copy to the hard drive and then copy to the CD. It was also suggested that I might acquire another CD burner software that would do a better job. Eek! I would *never* try scanning directly to a CDR. That is bound to result in buffer underruns and coasters. A CDR is not a hard drive or a floppy disk. Packet software makes it *look* like one, but it isn't! It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid having to fill up the hard drive with images. Yup, but it's not such a bad idea to check the image first before you burn it to a write once medium. Having said that, if you're using a TWAIN interface to scan into Photoshop or some similar program, you've created a temp file on the hard drive. If you then save from Photoshop to the CDR it ought to work. I don't have packet writing software, so I can't try this. On principle I would scan a set of files until I had enough to put on a CDR (like 650MB) then burn them all at once. You won't get 650MB on a packet CDR because the formatting takes up space. I realize that I could erase the image, but the procedure of copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image on the HD seems very cumbersome. Not really, especially if you're using drag and drop to do it. If you highlight a number of files, drag and drop them on the burner icon, you can then delete them using the same selection once they've been written. Personally I don't use packet CDs anyway. The tech also suggested a ZIP drive. I thought the purpose of the CD was to avoid having to get a ZIP drive. A ZIP drive won't hold many scans, depending on what resolution you're using. The files also won't be readable on someone else's computer unless they have the same model ZIP drive. CDR is much more universal. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Profiling a Scanner -- Was Polaroid SprintScan 120
Ian wrote: It is and so is CompassProfile Scanner and ColorSynergy, etc. [snip] Dan and Franz from ColorBlind fame and all their products are real cool and quite reasonably priced. Ian, do you have some URLs for these products? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: LS 1000 Windows 2000?
Paul wrote: I am trying to set up a Nikon LS-1000 slide scanner with Windows 2000, is this possible? I haven't tried it, but you'll probably have to install ASPI SCSI drivers for your SCSI card. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan: How do it know?
Preston wrote: I've managed to make three scans, but I don't know how I got it to work with scanner. Is your computer a PC or a Mac? Upon opening, it just seems to sit there. That's normal. You should see the options in the first tab, and it should list the source device as your scanner. If it says disk or something other than your scanner, it's not seeing the device.Make sure you turn on the scanner before you turn on the computer. None of the buttons (Preview, Scan, etc.) do anything. I can't get it to recognize the scanner. Which begs the question how you made scans previously. :-7 Should the VueScan software be loaded as a Photoshop plug-in? No. It doesn't work as a TWAIN application. While on the subject, *never* run the scanner's own software while Vuescan is running. If you do, the scanner will get confused and probably need to be switched off and on to reset it. Vuescan addresses the scanner directly via SCSI commands, so any other program simultaneously trying to talk to the scanner will confuse things. Is the trial version crippled in some way such that I really need to pony up the $40 to see how the program really works? No. The only thing which happens as a trial is that the program puts lines across the scan. I haven't used your particular scanner, so I can't comment specifically about it. I think it's actually a USB device which may be the source of the problem- afaik vuescan only supports USB in Windows? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Primefilm 1800i
Richard Schreurs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this Primefilm scanner a good tool for my needs? How's the software that comes with it, and what is the difference between the 1800i and the 1800u?? From what I've read, the Primefilm isn't worth touching. You'd be better off with the Acer Scanwit. For that matter, some of the flatbeds with film adapters may be a better choice than the Primefilm. Rob
Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02
S. Matthew Prastein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: content here, that PS, and in particular PS 6.0, is the Rosetta stone, an essential professional tool for achieving image quality, and uniformity, in publishing. It has a really good colour management system, and that is the best thing going for it IMO. But what about lower-class people like me? I'm an amateur, with very modest equipment (an Acer Scanwit 2740S and an Epson 900), very much in the learning mode. Should I shell out the $500+ bucks, plus the learning time, to get a grip on 6.0? IMO no. It depends on how picky you are about getting a precise match between the screen image and the page. But you'll need more than just Photoshop to do that... Will 5.0 LE serve me better, at least in the learning phase and possibly for all time? Maybe, although AFAIK PS 5.0 LE has *no* colour management. It's also missing quite a few other features. And what about the Jasc program? It receives rave reviews in popular (i.e. non-professional) reviews, especially in computer publications, but I don't recall any reference to it in this list. Why not? Most of the more vocal members of the list are professional photographers who can justify the cost of Photoshop. Like you, I find it hard to justify, especially since I live in Australia where it costs over AUD$1300. I have been using Paintshop Pro since version 4.x, and they're now up to 7.02. PSP 7.02 does most things Photoshop can do, and some things PS *can't* do. I don't have PS 6.0 so I can't do a direct comparison, but one thing I prefer in PSP is the page setup facility which allows you to visually place the image on the page - the lack of a wiziwyg page setup facility in PS 5.5 stunned me considering the price of the program. One *big* point in favour of JASC in my opinion - they have a newsgroup, and employees of the company post there and read it. They *do* take notice of user suggestions. The other people in the newsgroup can be very helpful if you are trying to figure out how to do something with PSP. What capabilities is it missing, that I really ought to have in order to do quality work? 1) A high quality CMS. PSP uses the Windows CMS which is ok but not brilliant (others may feel otherwise :) 2) A soft proofing feature. There *is* a soft proofing feature in PSP but since it uses the Windows CMS, its accuracy is dubious. 3) The ability to uses colour spaces other than sRGB. This may be important with some colours, but I've never personally found it to be a serious limitation. PSP was mainly created with editing for the web in mind, hence there was no need to support other colour spaces. These days however, PSP 7.02 has some great tools for editing digital or scanned photos. 4) The ability to work in 16bit colour. PSP can read a 16bit TIFF file, but once the file is opened, all editing is in 8bits per channel. I don't think this is an issue with the Acer, but using Vuescan and my LS30 I can squeeze 10 bits per channel out of the scanner to tweak into a better 8 bit per channel image. Picture Window Pro is another cheap photo editing program which you might consider in addition to PSP because it *does* support 16 bit editing. http://www.dl-c.com/ Put another way, how do I choose software that matches the capabilities of the rest of my system, and yet provides a reasonable path for future upgrade? I'd say that the Acer scanner, Epson printer, Vuescan and PSP 7.02 will give you great results. Stick to sRGB for the colour space and let the printer do automatic colour adjustment and you should get nice prints. On the other hand *don't* expect to get a precise match between the screen and the page! Doing real profiling and colour management is another whole kettle of fish. Rob PS If you'd been able to take advantage of the upgrade prices when PS6 was first released, my response may have been different. :)
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02
James Sims wrote: One bit of caution. When it comes to rotating an image to align a tilted image, neither of these applications do it well. Image alignment should be done by carefully aligning the image in the scanner. 90 and 180 degree rotations are handled very well with both applications. FWIW I use the crop tool in PSP to help with this. Generally if I am rotating the image, it's because the horizon is slightly off level. I create an outline using the crop tool with a side close to the line of the horizon, and this gives me a reference to judge whether the rotation has worked. The PSP crop tool doesn't behave like the selection tool, so it's safe to use in this way - otherwise you'd be rotating the selection. You can rotate by fractions of a degree - although I've never bothered with less than 0.5. Even a small amount of rotation will lose a lot of the edges of the image, so it's worth getting your camera level! :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me) for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!! If it does the job you want it for, then it's good enough! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [a bunch of stuff about printing] FWIW I always scan from the film scanner at full resolution (2700ppi with the LS30) and change the output (ie printed) resolution afterward. IMO it makes more sense to get the maximum off the film, and then figure out how to scale it afterwards in Photoshop or PSP. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase Target Size. Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. I can't remember what the maximum real ppi of the 1640 is, Rick, but essentially you want to scan so you're getting that maximum. You don't want to exceed it or you're just getting interpolated data, and you don't want to scan at less or you're not making the most of the scanner's resolution. OK, I just checked the Epson site. The 1640 is 1600ppi. If you scan a 1 inch square off a frame of film, you'll get 1600x1600 pixels. Print that at 300dpi and the image will be 5.3 x 5.3. If you use the 3200ppi mode of the scanner one dimension is interpolated, but that would give you twice the print size without resampling. In my past experience there's little improvement in data once you get to the smaller of the ppi limits of a flatbed (1600ppi in this case). Hope that's some help! Rob
Re: filmscanners: GEM
Norman Quinn wrote: What scanners come with GEM and ROC. Is Nikon the only scanner with ICE? If you use Vuescan, you can do grain reduction and restoration of colour with all sorts of scanners. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film grain
Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, it's not really overexposing the film to rate it one to two stops slower than the manufacture's recommendation. Hm. OK. LED scanners are different than enlargers however, and overexposure more than two stops may build enough density to cause problems. A good general rating for most C-41 films is one stop overexposure (for best quality). I haven't seen anything in a C41 neg scan I could put down to problems with density with my LS30. Slides, yes. Negs, no. Only silver negs. They are *really* hard to scan. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a number of C41 films dating back from when I was yearbook photographer in high school... in the late 1960s. None of them are showing any significant signs of deterioration. And I have some negs from about 1982 where the emulsion has virtually dissolved due to (I believe) a combination of heat, humdity and non-archival storage materials. Rob
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:06:18 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have seen banding in a SS4000 scan when using layers to bring up dark details. Under normal circumstances you would never see it though. Hmm, well, I quite often do this, and still have never seen banding. Yours must be a lemon ;-) If only it *was* mine! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snippage] possibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, I have to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now. I for one have hundreds of images already on 35mm film I want to translate to digital, so the film scanner will be handy while the digicam technology gets to that ideal world I spoke of. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also don't really believe in film-grain aliasing -- film grain is essentially non-periodic, or, more accurately white noise -- ie, containing an even distribution of frequency elements from DC to infinity. I don't see why that excludes aliasing of the CCD sample pattern with the film pattern, especially with the larger elements of the grain. :-7 Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film grain vs 2700 DPI scan resolution
Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. With 200 film, is the grain large enough for the 2700 DPI to record it? If so could some one describe it (or email me a couple scan clips showing examples?) Colour neg films have a random mixture of different sized dye clouds. The only C41 film I've scanned which showed no appreciable apparent grain in mid-tones and highlights was T400CN BW film exposed at EI250. All other C41 films *seem* to show grain. I don't think anyone one the list has the exact figures to show the comparison between dye cloud size and the area of a pixel at 2700dpi but from what I've read here, some are approaching the same size. Errors occur when the CCD elements see the boundaries between different coloured dye clouds and these errors create a random pattern resulting from the random pattern of dye clouds in the film. So what you see *isn't* actually the grain, but an interference pattern based on the grain. 2. Would you expect 1 stop down to be enough to see serious increase in grain in 200 film in these conditions? Yes. Referring back to the scans of T400 I see a serious increase in the apparent grain in shadow areas of the same frame. So I'd expect any change in exposure with a C41 film to demonstrate a change in apparent grain. Define serious however. :) This weekend I am going to repeat the tests with a couple rolls of FUGI Provia 100F to see if the noise I am seeing FUGI 200 goes away. With low contrast images in Provia 100F and a 2700 dpi scanner you shouldn't see any significant artifacts caused by grain. Higher contrast images will probably start to generate problems with scanner noise in the shadows but this is *not* anything to do with film grain aliasing. For a more meaningful comparison of grain in C41 it probably makes more sense to compare a 10x8 enlargement with a 2700dpi scan than to look at a 6x4 print. Rob
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No banding problems here, ever, with a SS4000. I have seen banding in a SS4000 scan when using layers to bring up dark details. Under normal circumstances you would never see it though. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film. Only if the prices also come down. I can't see the point in buying a 3Mpix digicam when I can buy a good 35mm SLR for half the price. The digicams at 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qualification first - I don't know for a fact that only colors strictly within the sRGB gamut can be displayed, but that is generally the case. According to what I've read on the Epson list, sRGB was a gamut designed around an average computer screen. Most people with filmscanners probably have better screens which are capable of a wider gamut. Having said that, if the monitor profile is the Windows defaut, not one specifically for the monitor, AFAIK it will be sRGB regardless of whether the monitor is capable of more. and then of necessity alter the non-viewable colours so that they are viewable, to the closest color displayable by the monitor. You will get an impression of what the result will be - you will not see the actual result until it is printed to paper, film, or whatever. And only then if the whole system is accurately profiled. Otherwise you'll see *a* result but not what you might expect. Photoshop et.al., when showing color in another color space, will show you how the colors relate to, or compare to each other, in that color space, even though all of the colors in that color space are not viewable onscreen. Hm. I'm not really sure how it does that, but I follow what you're suggesting above about compressing the gamut to fit. Photoshop 5.5 has an out of gamut display but I'm unconvinced about its usefulness. In the absence of expensive hardware and software to accurately profile my whole setup, I'm beginning to think that sticking to sRGB is probably the simplest way out. Rob
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Tony wrote: Generally, if you are seeing green-blue speckle in shadows from colour neg (look like CCD noise, but can't be - CCD noise in negs afflicts highlights, the densest part of the film, and manifests as yellow/magenta speckle), giving a little more neg exposure will reduce this dramatically, as the overlapping dye clouds don't alias as badly. I'll have to give it a try. Incidentally Rob, could you take a look under the hood of your mail client. It appears to be your replies which are introducing the 'enhanced' subject lines to list threads. I don't know why exactly, something MIME related - see the last line below, the listserver is converting your msgs to plain text. I'm using Outlook Express 5.0. The text is set to plain text and the formatting to MIME with none as the text encoding. I don't think there's anything else I can do. I have to say that it's only on your replies to me that I've seen anything go awry, so it seems to be a problem with the way your email client behaves with my emails, that doesn't seem to affect anyone else? :-7 Rob
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Dark scans
Ramesh wrote: This is the first time I am scanning SLIDE:-) Adjust the brightness. It defaults to 1.0 which is fine for negs but for slides you probably need 1.2 to 1.4 depending on the density. Give it a try. If you push it too far you'll get a lot of scanner noise. Don't worry too much about the preview - look at a final scan after adjusting the brightness. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Tomasz wrote: Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? 1) Availability. I don't know of anywhere near me that has one 2) Cost. I can do A3 prints cheaper on my 1160 3) Detail. I can get more information onto the paper with an inkjet than with a minilab. The printer isn't as limited in the range of values or manipulations that are possible. 4) Control. As others have mentioned, the inkjet allows me to decide how I want the print to be. Otherwise the technician at the lab decides. Having said all that, archival quality on Crystal Archive would be nice. I don't have a CIS and pigmented inks. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Steve wrote: The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film. If all you ever want is screen resolution I'd agree. But most people want to print things, and that takes more resolution. The average person doesn't understand this; just ask my brother who has been losing hair through people trying to submit 75dpi scans for printing in a magazine he produces! I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). No need for an asbestos suit with respect to me. I don't doubt that digital photography will replace film, but I'm not convinced it will happen as fast or be as good as a lot of people are saying. Someone else just pointed out that the data coming from cameras is only 8 bits per channel, which may be a serious limitation in some cases. I would say that the jpeg compression used in most cameras to save memory is a far worse factor in image quality. But even with 8 bits per channel, give me the same number of pixels as I currently get out of Provia 100F with the LS30 and enough memory to store 36 pictures with lossless compression in removable media that doesn't cost the earth, and a battery system that works... for about US$500... and then I'll happily agree that film is dead. :) Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on this list. :) Rob PS I'll try to stay on topic Tony, honest! Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Lynn wrote: Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg. Well, let's be more specific about this - scanning a BW neg in RGB looks the same as scanning it in IR. It's *not* simply black in IR. I haven't looked at the comparison in detail to see if there's any minor differences like focus or contrast. OTOH, it seems like it would create a perfect mask if the neg were scratched, because the IR *would* pass through the scratches. No. See above. An area of pure white on the neg (black in the original scene) will pass IR just as effectively as a scratch. So as I said earlier, you can't tell what is image and what is a scratch. The scratch could be real detail like a fine wire across bright sky. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: ISO 320 was RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Tony wrote: ISO320 will generally improve most ISO400 materials, without causing problems. I presume you're talking C41 films here, Tony? I also presume you're saying that exposing a C41 400ASA film at EI320 improves the results but doesn't require any special treatment at the lab? Just checking that you're not talking about slide films. :) (most labs I've spoken to claim that C41 can't be pushed or the equipment doesn't allow it anyway, and that the latitude of most print films makes it un-necessary) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Lynn wrote: Roger wrote: Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use IR dust removal with it. Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't IR still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg? How does the software determine what is a scratch and what isn't? The whole point with a chromogenic image is that the image doesn't appear in the IR channel. You don't have that with a BW neg. I don't think there would be any advantage to an IR channel compared to a normal channel in terms of scratches except that the scratch *may* be a little more obvious. The main problem is that the scratch might also be a fine line of image detail... Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors
Mikael wrote: 1. VueScan = best results negative scanning , S-RGB and gamma 1.4-1.8 If I use VueScan and the Adobe RGB color space settings the picture will be flat and dull in colors. AFAIK this is normal. The gamuts of the colour spaces are different. But it leads me to wonder - if some of the problems I've had with colour matching between the screen and the output on an Epson printer is that the printer driver expects the user to be viewing an image in sRGB not in Adobe RGB? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED Banding
Rafe wrote: Not entirely sure what this does -- the Nikon manual says it uses one CCD row rather than three -- but it did completely eliminate the banding. The price is that the scan takes three times as long (!!!) Maybe the banding is caused by differences in the response of the three CCD rows? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Maris wrote: I apologize - my message was wrong in a basic respect. The monitor profile screen will not change the color space viewed by Windows - that is set by Windows itself to be sRGB. It will change how the monitor shows the sRGB color space colors on-screen. If this is the case, how can a program like Photoshop ever display colours outside the sRGB gamut? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Ramesh wrote: But my image is tagged as ProPhotoRGB. I think, before interpreting as sRGB, windows is supposed to do some gamut mapping from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB. The tag is only used if the software is aware of it. Windows ignores embedded profiles AFAIK. As I think Maris suggested, you'd need to convert the image to sRGB in Photoshop then save it as a different name before using the new file for wallpaper. Otherwise Windows will interpret the RGB values as sRGB and they will look flat. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Microtek 4000 problem.
Mark wrote: The software would recognise when the film carrier was inserted, however when trying to scan, the film carrier would not move. The scanner just made a lot noise. Is this similar to the problem with the SS4000 carrier detector getting dusty? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Darrell wrote: I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and thereby remove parts of the photographic image? Not with a colour slide or negative film. Chromogenic films should be fine, as should be slides but some of the more dense slide films may have problems - eg. Kodachrome. It depends on how much of the image is visible in Infra-red. Silver based BW film images are not transparent to IR so they don't work. Has anyone had observations or done any testing in this regard? Perhaps photographinq a high contrast texture or the white fluff from poplar trees floating in the air aqainst a dark background and then surgically placing lint on one half the film to be scanned for comparison? I haven't done a test like this but I have recently looked at the IR component of scans from a number of different types of film. The only respect in which I've seen the real image being adversely affected by IR dust and scratch removal is a softening of the image overall. I am currently stuck with an Artixscan 4000T which, of course, does not have this capability as far as I know. No, the Artixscan 4000T and the Polaroid SS4000 don't have an IR channel. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Missing imgio.exe
Stewart wrote: I have just started receiving the message that imgio.exe cannot be found and I would appreciate being told where I can obtain the file. Huh? Sure your computer hasn't got a virus? 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
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
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
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
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: 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
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 BW 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 BW 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 BW 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 BW 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
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 BW 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: 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 bw 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 bw. 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
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
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 BW! 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 BW work well with ICE. What the scan of FP4 makes me realise is that if you have a lot of BW (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 attachment: infra_red_comparison.jpg
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
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 BW films. Presumably the behaviour would be identical with Kodachrome and BW film because the behaviour with IR is the same. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
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
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
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
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
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: 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: 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
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
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
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
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: 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
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: 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: 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
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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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
