Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
Ezio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in speeding up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU. Anyone wanting more IO speed at a reasonable price might want to think about an IDE array. Promise make an IDE RAID card - check their web site and you'll find a link to a comparison of a 2 drive array with a 15K rpm SCSI drive. The array performs pretty well. I find myself constantly frustrated by waiting for scans to load and save. My second hard drive is an old mode 4 5400rpm drive - the CDROM drive actually reads a scan file faster than the old hard drive! Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID Controller total cost about US$330 The cost of a SCSI 3 adapter and a suitable SCSI 3 drive would be quite a bit more. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Scanning negs and white spots
Frank wrote: only thing I needed. This last roll also had scratches (mostly horizontal) all over it. Glad to know I'm not the only one whose films get mistreated in processing! BTW I shot a roll of Kodak 100VS and when scanning it noticed circular shapes at the edge of the frame. I questioned the lab and they said that the kodak slide film had a tendency to hold the chemistry in the sprockets which then created these rings when it dried. Apparently Fuji film doesn't do this! The rings were awkward to remove when scanning. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Epson 1270 prints
Spencer wrote: I have left a couple of my Epson 1270 prints made on some of the newer heavyweight paper out in the hot and humid Hawaii weather Is it Heavyweight Matte? From what I've read, the matte paper isn't anywhere near as susceptible to the problem as the Premium Glossy paper (which has been withdrawn from sale). If it's semi-gloss paper, the semi gloss is intended for the 2000P and I don't know how other inksets will behave with it. Obscanning: I shouldn't have been surprised, but I recently switched the LS30 to sRGB since I was scanning into Paintshop Pro (PSP only supports sRGB), and discovered that suddenly the colours became *much* more vibrant. For those without Photoshop, this is probably a good idea - set your TWAIN software to sRGB. I'd be interested to hear comments on this - considering how often I've been told that I really need wider gamut colour spaces to get the most out of my scanner and printer... Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Epson1270 and PhotoShop LE
Hornford, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no upgrade from LE to full PhotoShop. There most certainly is - IF you live in North America. Check the Adobe home page at www.adobe.com The bad news is that it's NOT $199 as mentioned previously - it's more. Rob
filmscanners: OT(kinda): Epson 1160 and CIS
Time wrote: I must now consider the 1160 and the bulk ink system. Cymru/Wales I notice you're from the UK. You should also talk to Lyson about their quad black inks (try www.marrutt.com). They may be more cost effective than the Cone inks, depending on the exchange rate. AFAIK you can still use Lyson inks with a continuous ink system. I don't know if the Cone system requires a particular CIS - I think it's just a replacement driver program and inkset. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: GIMP and Vuescan in Linux
Gordon wrote: There is an alternative to PhotoShop if anyones interested... Linux, VueScan and GIMP... I'm no expert, but as far as I can see, I can do everything that I want to do in GIMP - cropping, touch-up, colour tweaking and so on (any number of undos) and with the GIMP-Print module, slides I'm scanning, GIMPing and printing (Epson 1270) are coming out absolutely superb. Hm, but what about colour management? Someone posted a while back that people were working on the issue in Linux, but AFAIK there's no current CMS? What colour space does GIMP use? In Windows I generally use Paintshop Pro - which does pretty much everything significant that Photoshop does (and has a much friendlier printing interface) but is limited to sRGB. It's not free, but it's *much* cheaper to buy than Photoshop. It does link into the Windows CMS in 98SE, ME and Win2K. I'd be interested in trying GIMP - it might give me a reason to keep my second hard drive and install Linux on it. But only if I can find a driver for the Stylus 700 and an X engine for the TNT2 card. Is Vuescan the only scanner interface in Linux for TWAIN devices like the HP scanjet and Nikon film scanner? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Scanning negs and white spots
I (and others) have noticed scanned negs tend to show a lot of white spots which don't seem to be caused by dust on the surface of the neg. Since the image is inverted, presumably the spots are dark or black (opaque) on the neg itself. Without ICE, this makes for a lot of work in scanning a film. I suspect that it's from a couple of possible causes: 1) Dust bonded into the neg during processing 2) spots of undeveloped neg emulsion caused by bubbles during processing I don't think I had any such features on BW film I processed myself by hand, but I'd have to check. Is this yet another downside of mechanical processing of C41 in minilabs? Dust in the chemistry and bubbles on the film? Does anyone have a clearer idea of the cause(s) of these spots? The white spots in negs seem to be much more frequent than black spots in slides (which in my experience almost always *are* dust that can be cleaned). Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Upgrading to Photoshop 6.0 from LE
Edwin wrote: Offer valid in the U.S.and Canada now through 12/31/00. I wonder why so many US software companies limit their offers geographically? Granted a large part of their market may be in north America, but don't they realise that by giving the rest of the world a slap in the face, they're not helping their export sales? Don't they want to sell via the net? Obscanning: If I can just convince JASC to implement colour spaces other than sRGB, I won't need to bow to the Adobe god. How is this related to scanning? Tried doing any meaningful scanning without Photoshop, Paintshop Pro or some similar tool? Rob (who obviously needs a better paid job so he'll quit whining about software prices and exchange rates... maybe work in the USA?) Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Epson1270 and PhotoShop LE
Gordon wrote: Once you register the LE with qSAdobe yopu will be qualify fir the upgrade to PS 6 at the upgrade price. That is how I got my full version of PS spme time ago. Does anyone know if this applies to Photoshop LE outside of North America? (Australia specifically in my case) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Epson1270 and PhotoShop LE
Walter wrote: If my priority was black and white and longevity was not a concern I'd go with the 1270, no question. Cheaper too. Or you could get an 1160 with a CIS and use 3rd party quad black inks like John Cone's Piezography system. Guaranteed no problems with colour crossover. You can use the 1160 with colour 3rd party inks that are pigment based as well - and the 1160 is a LOT cheaper than the 2000P. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Enough is enough.
Ingemar wrote: I just joined the list. Give me one good reason to stay on! Agreed. Amusing though the off topic threads can be, we really need to try to take them off the list. Rob (at least the stuff about Epson printers was vaguely related to scanning!)
Re: filmscanners: Image databases?
I've tried a couple of the programs which have been suggested and here are some comments which I hope may be of help to others. I wouldn't use Jasc Media Center or Armadillo Photo, but they may be useful for others. Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far! 1. Jasc Media Center Plus 3 o Displays thumbnails much like PSP o Doesn't provide the ability for sub-folder display like PSP browse o Thumbnail size is easily changed o Most image info is stored in the album - not necessary to have a CD source in the drive o Double clicking will open the image using the specified editor. If the disk is not present, JMCP will prompt with the label or the disk to be inserted. o Keywords can be stored against files and searches performed o F3 and Ctrl-F3 toggle forward and backward between keyword matches. This could be painfully slow if many matches are present o No means to organise images into sub-groups other than putting them in separate albums or using keywords 2. Armadillo Photo o Non-standard windows interface. Although the program has clearly been built using a standard tool such as C++, it ignores all the standards for Windows interfaces; - no menus - no resizable windows - non-standard look and feel o Only one database is possible. It does not seem to be possible to have several databases split by say subject material o Database growth is rapid. Rather than storing only the thumbnail, the program stores both a thumbnail and and optimised and reduced larger image. It doesn't seem to be possible to link only to the original image as for JMCP above. The user is never prompted for a missing disk (eg. CDR) since the database copy is used, although the information regarding the original and the volume it came from is available. Processing only a few hundred images resulted in over 60MB worth of data in Armadillo. o Many Keywords can be entered against a given image, but the drop down lists are extremely inconsistent o The program seems unstable.
Re: filmscanners: need help with selection
quicksilver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Price is important but not the only consideration. I expect that $500-1000 is my price range. If you can, I'd go for the Polaroid SS4000, otherwise the Nikon LS30 or Minolta Scan Dual II. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Image databases?
Geoff Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thumbsplus 4.10 seems to have the facilities you are after [snip] continuously with TP saving each file straight to disc. However the software is only 24 bit. Does this mean it only reads 24 bit files? Or that it can only save 24bit files? That could be a problem with cataloguing the raw or 48bit files from Vuescan. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution.
Roman Kielich® [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation - infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition. Not to be too picky here, but infra-red and ultraviolet radiation are often called "light". :) Rob
filmscanners: Image databases?
I know this subject has come up before but I'll ask again anyway - are there any decent and reasonably cheap image databases out there? I already have hundreds (thousands?) of scanned images which I need to index and sort so I can find them. The database needs to be able to index a CD so it can identify the disk without it being in the computer at the time (I'm NOT buying a jukebox, thanks!). It also needs to sort images by several different categories (ie. a picture may be of a kangaroo so sorted under "animals" but be from a trip to Lamington National Park, so sorted under the name of the park as well), and provide thumbnails without the CD being loaded. I've seen ACDsee mentioned before but it just seems to be a browser, not a searchable database per se. Any ideas? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000
Geoff wrote: I'm not sure how labs manage to scratch negs so badly! Ever watched how they throw them around before they sleeve them? Rob
RE: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images
Jerry wrote: Which of the next 2 procedures results in more loss of picture quality? 1. Downsize an image (w.r.t. number of pixels) using bicubic resampling, then go from 16 bit / pixel to 8 bit / pixel. 2. Go from 16 bit / pixel to 8 bit / pixel, then downsize an image (w.r.t. number of pixels) using bicubic resampling. 2, since option 1 gives the resmpling algorithm more data to work with, and makes the relatioships between pixels more accurate. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Film handling was Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000
Art wrote: Many labs have a very bad policy with film handling. The majority of people do not order reprints, and since the film is usually printed before it is cut and sleeved, a lot of the scratches are put on after the printer is done with them, or by the automated film gate (again, after the print has been made). I know even the better lab I use uses spotting inks to spot out the scratches they put on the negs in processing them - most labs certainly don't bother. If I had time, I'd process them myself and scan them, then I'd take the CDR to the lab and never let them touch the film! One lab had me convinced my camera was scratching the film - until I shot a roll of BW and prcesed it myself. Bingo! No scratches... Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Pope v Galileo (thanks shAF ;-)
[stuff about science vs art vs religion snipped] Guys, I did an entire university year on theories of science, but this is a list about film scanners. Rob (and I'll try not to pursue threads about printing either! ;)
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Gordon Tassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat lower cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with Vuescan. And with Vuescan it is able to output 10bits per channel while Nikonscan limits it to 8. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this increases the LS30's dynamic range. (What to? I have no idea!) Rob
RE: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Buck wrote: Microtek 4T and the Kodak RFS-3600. I have no one to ask about which would be best for an amateur interested in enlarging slides to 8X10. Does the difference in 2700 to 4000 dpi make any difference with my equipment? Buck, I have a Nikon LS30 but if you can afford the Polaroid SS4000, go for it. I would have bought the Polaroid if I could have afforded one. The Nikon's 2700dpi is fine for 8x10 out of the Stylus 700 (I have the same printer) but 4000dpi from the Polaroid would give you more choices in terms of cropping. At some point you'll probably also want to go to A3 or a newer higher resolution printer, so the more dpi from the film the better. I do NOT think the LS2000 is a good buy given that the SS4000 is about the same price. If you only need 2700dpi then the LS30 is great. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Jaggies was RE: filmscanners: LS2000 Fuji NPH settings
Roman wrote: 2. win98, memturbo indicating CPU 10-35%, faster scan. Both images were 2700 dpi, full frame. Saved and opened in Picture Publisher 8 (800%) to see individual pixels. Can you see jaggies? No. But then I don't always get jaggies on my machine either. The fact that your LS30 has a different BIOS and Nikonscan version makes a direct comparison difficult. It's possible that your memory manager may help as well. I am not sure if your problems are created by slow HD,low PIO/DMA. Anyway, I cannot repeat jaggies, even when I push CPU to the max. (BTW it was Celeron 300A native, no overclocking). I can only consistently reproduce the problem with particular images, and then only when scanning the entire frame. Jaggies won't occur when scanning a small section since it doesn't load up the machine sufficiently. Does UDMA100 solve the problem? I don't know. I've had to disconnect the hard drive from the UDMA100 interface because it was causing blue screens and other faults - not the interface itself, but the files coming off the hard drive were being corrupted somewhere. I think it's because the Fujitsu drive doesn't properly support UDMA66. I'm going to be sending the drive back anyway since it has developed some bad sectors, so we shall see what happens when I get the replacement. When I try it again I'll also disable the motherboard's onboard IDE since it is probably contributing to the faults. Have a great weekend everyone! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question
shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a mystery to me why the Epson manuals do not provide this information I think one of the manuals that came with my Stylus 700 does say that 240dpi is the best option when calculating the resolution to print at, but I would have to dig them out to check! I think it was the colour printing guide? Rob
OT: Epson output dpi was Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question
Stephen wrote: The Epson 1200 apparently prints best at an output dpi of 240 but what about the best output dpi for the Epson 1270? *All* Epson photo printers will print best at integer divisors of 1440dpi. It's easy enough to test for yourself. The visible dithering in the print will be lower when the image is output to the driver at 240dpi than 300dpi or other resolutions that don't relate to the printer's native resolution. Some people claim to see improvements using dpi settings of over 240dpi but IMO what they're seeing is differecnes in interpretation of the data by the driver, not "real" detail. Rob PS IMO this *is* film scanner related since a lot of people have been asking about dpi settings especially related to printing. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: OT: Yippee!
I finally got my hard drive working in UDMA66 under Win98SE! Now loading 27MB film scans won't be anywhere near as painful as the same drive in compatibility mode. :) I used a Promise IDE/100 card to sidestep the problem. :) Just in case anyone has had a similar issue... Rob
RE: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question
Sisk98 wrote: I just received the Polaroid sprintscan 4000 slide scanner. I;m new to scanning. I would like to print 11x17 inch prints on my Epson 1200. My question is..what should I scan my slides or negatives at to achieve the best results. 4000dpi?? The Epson 1200 will print best at an output dpi of 240dpi. Divide the number of pixels you get from a frame scanned at 4000ppi by 240 and you'll get the print size in inches without resampling. You should easily get 11x17 from it. Most film scanners scan best at their maximum non-interpolated dpi - so for the SS4000 that would be 4000dpi. I always scan with my Nikon LS30 set to 2700dpi. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: LS30 and jaggies was RE:Hello
photoscientia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their fix was ingenious. More a stroke of inspiration than a logical engineering solution. They fire a reverse pulse of very short duration into the motor at the end of every step. This acts as electronic damping, and it's very controllable. Maybe Ed could try it? But presumably this would be a firmware level thing, not SCSI level commands. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: LS30 and jaggies was RE:Hello
ILyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, you need a Mac, which doesn't suffer the problem, even if CMS in On. Or you need for Nikon to use the same scsi timing as the Mac and then the PC wouldn't suffer the problem when CMS is turned ON. [snip] The problem has Sweet FA to do with resonance, if it was resonance Nikon could fix it with ease. I don't see what possible difference there could be between SCSI timing on a Mac and SCSI timing on a PC. SCSI is SCSI. If the Mac coders sent different commands to the scanner, or sent the same commands with different timings, that is the answer. It has NOTHING to do with platform. Nikon have made no public response to the issue that I'm aware of, so I've seen no evidence that they've attempted to fix it - but on the other hand I've heard at least one report that upgrading to the latest Nikonscan resolved the issue. Personally I don't really care whether it's resonance, timing, or anything else - but I *do* know that the commands Vuescan sends to the scanner resolve the problem. If Ed can do it, Nikon ought to be able to. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: LS30 and jaggies was RE:Hello
Roman Kielich® [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 64K blocks that are causing the resonance that results in jaggies. My guess in your case was that switching on colour mangement increased the computer's CPU overhead to the point that the actual scanning process was slowed down. if it is CPU problem, then what is required CPU speed to work flawlessly? I don't know. I don't have the means to find out. In fact, I suspect that whether you have DMA enabled or not is probably a much more critical issue as the hard drive can steal 80% of the CPU cycles otherwise. My Celeron 300A and 256 MB of RAM seems to be sufficient, not to mention if overclocked. Meaning you have never experienced jaggies? The RAM would help for caching. What hard drives do you have running in what DMA mode? Do we need a solid base for a scanner to prevent the resonance? I don't think it makes any difference. Whether the scanner is vertical or horizontal doesn't seem to matter either. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: LS30 and jaggies was RE:Hello
ILyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of say 1000Mhz. Sorry, but the CPU overhead theory dies a death as soon as someone with a 200 Pentium using ICE says they don't have the problem and someone with the faster CPU does. That depends on what else might be occupying the CPU - as in my case, the IDE hard drive. Nevertheless, I was of the understanding that Scsi had the advantage of not (or only very slightly) impacting on CPU overhead. Correct, but that's not my point. Colour management is not a function (AFAIK) of the scanner hardware itself. It's a software function. Anything which the Nikonscan software has to do to process the data between getting 64K chunks off the SCSI bus potentially could result in handshaking faults, and introduce pauses in the physical scanning process. From what Ed has said, the scanning needs to happen at a certain speed or problems will occur. In the case of my computer, the main thing causing a headache is the fact that I can't enable DMA on the hard drive, and that steals clock cycles from Nikonscan - possibly 80% of them. If the problem was only to do with Nikon CMS, it would NEVER have occurred with Vuescan. But it did until Ed fixed VueScan :-) I seem to recall a lot of folk singing praises for doing so. I also recall that he spent some time explaining the nature of the fix he applied. Um, so you're agreeing with me here in this respect? Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Resolution revisited, or scanner resolves 2 microns!
Bob Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in Bucks, UK and have an LS30. If Pete wants to mail me off list, we may be able to arrange this. Excellent, Bob! I think you'd need to email Pete with your snail address. If possible, I'd like a raw scan of a section which shows the finest resolution - a PNG no more than 500KB so I can add it to the material about the Nikon scanners on my site. But either way, let us know how it goes! Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: LS30 and jaggies was RE:Hello
ILyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its the same darned scanner. I use the SAME scanner on PC and Mac platform I use the SAME scanner with NikonScan, SilverFast and VueScan. The ONLY time jaggies EVER occur is with NikonScan when CMS is ON. Ian, I've had jaggies with CMS off. It's not purely related to the CMS. Hell, I've even had jaggies with earlier versions of Vuescan - which has no CMS. Think about this! If my scanner works without a problem in EVERY compatible scanner package and platform EXCEPT Nikon Scan with CMS ON then how can this be a resonance problem ?? As I mentioned - using the CMS probably adds CPU overhead in processing the data. That causes pauses in the scan cycle. It may also be that Nikonscan sends different commands bedpending on whether CMS is enabled or not. I don't know - that's one for Ed. If so then why does a change in scsi timing cure the problem, switching of the CMS cure the problem, but faster processor and more (buckets more) doesn't. The scanner starting and stopping as it scans has damn all to do with the jaggies if it did then the results out of SilverFast with ICE on would be absolutely dire, since it scans it at snails pace and stops and starts even more frequently than NikonScan. Ian, I can see you're upset about this, but I think you're letting your anger get in the way of logical analysis. I have, as I mentioned, had jaggies with CMS on *and* off. And with older versions of vuescan. I've also experienced the problem much less when my hard drive was able to have DMA enabled and wasn't stealing 60% or more of the CPU cycles writing data. If the problem was only to do with Nikon CMS, it would NEVER have occurred with Vuescan. I have a 533MHz processor waiting to be plugged in, as well as a UDMA100 card. If I can get the CPU upgraded and DMA enabled again, I'll try Nikonscan and see if its behaviour has changed. Until then, I have no data from personal experience to work with other than to say that jaggies occurred less after I went from a P90 with 64MB RAM to a Celeron 366 with 96MB RAM. Try scanning a small selection of a problem slide with Nikonscan and CMS. When I did this using a slide that had *always* produced jaggies, they went away. The fact that the selection was small enough that hard drive buffering and CPU overhead were far less of a problem was evidence enough for me that there's more factors involved. I'd be interested to know if the problem would ever occur if I was using SCSI hard drives rather than IDE. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Flatbeds for Proof sheets
Someone was asking about flatbeds for proof sheets. I don't remember anyone mentioning these two (at opposite extremes of cost): Microtek Scanmaker 5 which has a drawer to scan slides Umax 2100XL with transparency adapter is about US$1500 and can scan (according to the blurb on buy.com) 31 slides at a time and do it as a batch using a special holder. It also scans reflectives and transpanrecies up to A3. They might be worth checking out. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Resolution revisited, or scanner resolves 2 microns!
Photoscientia wrote: This chrome has resolution bars down to 2 microns on it, the equivalent of 250 lppm! Any chance the same slide could be scanned on an LS30 and/or a SS400? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Odp: Hello
Tomasz wrote: The price of the scanner is the decisive factors, so I'm only considering a 35mm scanner. But, preferably from Nikon. Preferably with 4000dpi If you're in the market for 4000dpi give serious thought to the Polaroid SS4000. It's been on the market a while now, gives great results and support from polaroid seems excellent - they even listen to feedback from this list. Just because Nikon makes great cameras it doesn't mean they're the only choice in scanners - and that's coming from someone who owns a Nikon LS30. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Question: Do any program settings affect the way Vuescan scans?
Other than the number of passes setting do any of the other settings in Vuescan actually affect the way the scanning is done or does it just alter the output. The brightness control - at least with the Nikon scanners - is the same as the analogue gain control in Nikonscan. It changes the integration time. The only other controls which changethe way the scanner scans other than the number of passes (AFAIK) are those related to the scan area. My main reason for asking is if you have an underexposed slide and want to try to obtain more detail from shadow areas is the only concrete way to improve this by setting for multiple passes (16 for example). Are there any settings which actually adjust the length of the scan or intensity of the lamp to better illuminate the dark areas? The brightness control does if the scanner is capable of it. Be aware you must rescan using Scan/Device not Scan/Memory to see the effect of changes in the Brightness control. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Hello
Tomasz wrote: - scanning of negatives for reference before selling them to clients What format are the films you want to scan? 35mm? Larger? next several years. That' s why I'm in need for thorough knowledge about film scanner and scanning, Photoshop 5.0, Dmax, white and black point, 14 bit colour, etc. You could check out the info on Adobe's web site in their support files for their products. There's a lot of useful information there. http://www.adobe.com Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Polaroid in OZ?
Richard wrote: My local Polaroid dealer (I'm in Port Moresby - Papua New Guinea) tells me that he is unable to get a 45 ultra - out of Polaroid Australia Try contacting the Scanner Place by email. Maybe they can get a sensible answer out of Polaroid since they're selling quite a lot of SS4000 scanners. Go to www.scannerplace.com.au Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: CMYK vs RGB for publication
Roger wrote: on-line digital art information site: (http://cjs.cadmus.com/da/). Cadmus states over and over again that RGB files CANNOT BE SEPARATED CORRECTLY and WILL NOT PRINT PROPERLY, and only CMYK files are acceptable. It may have something to do with the XyVision page composition system they use. I'm new to this issue myself, but I recently had to provide my brother with CMYK files for the magazine he's producing. I also sent 800x600 jpegs (which are of course RGB) so that the printers had "proofs" to show what the colours are *supposed* to look like. As far as I can make out, it's impossible to convert accurately from RGB to CMYK without a profile for the CMYK printer - and even then the process seems to be appallingly complicated. At some point, any RGB file has to be converted to CMYK to print it - at home, my printer driver does it for me! :) FWIW, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: CMYK vs RGB for publication
Tony wrote: 'You must supply CMYK' = 'we aren't going to buy a Mac and PS and learn how to use them, even if it means the client gets a worse print job'. This leads me to something I've been wondering (and I'm gonig to ask this on Usenet as well) - do the colours shown on the screen after converting an image to CMYK in PSP or PS really reflect the way it will look when printed? I'm assuming they are inaccurate - certainly in PSP. If you save an RGB image as CMYK then load it back in, the colours will have shifted a LOT. I *think* this is because PSP is trying to display a CMYK file on an RGB device (monitor) but I don't know for sure. When making CMYK TIFFs for my brother's printing company I provided jpegs for comparison - so they can fix the colours if they want. What I was worried about was that if I edited the CMYK file, the printed result would look awful. Am I on the right track in thinking that what is required is a profile for the CMYK device before adjusting the colours in CMYK is advisable? From what i've read here and elsewhere there's no simple answer to this issue. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: VueScan Epson 1200U for Transparency
Bob wrote: way that the (in my case) 1200U can't scan this size area under the Epson Twain software at 1200dpi. Have you tried the same scan using Epson Twain and then VueScan? If so, does one work and the other not? A friend of mine was having problems scanning large areas at 1200dpi using the Epson 1200U. I'd be interested to hear if this is a generic problem with the scanners. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Film grain comparisons - PNG file links fixed
I've fixed the links to the PNG files. Clicking on one of the jpeg files will allow you to download the corresponding PNG. I also just found out that one of my brothers has access to a microscope with a camera, so I may be able to add photomicrographs of the same film frames I've scanned. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: CDRS was LS30 BIOS
Photoscientia wondered: Did you ever get that damned Panasonic 7502 to write reliably at 4 speed? I'm not Roman, but I have. I tried mine with all of the firmware 'upgrades', and with every system configuration I could think of. I even tried it with several different SCSI cards, and always got a buffer underrun, or some obscure SCSI error when I tried to use it at 4 speed. The main factor I've found determining whether I can write at quad spin is the speed of the hard drive. When I was using Win95 with the Intel mobo drivers, I could write entire CDs at 4X without a problem (7502B BIOS 2.17 I think). At the moment Win98SE refuses to enable DMA on the boot drive, so I'm limited to 2X except for writing amounts small enough to be fully memory buffered. Come to think of it, the issue may not be hard drive speed but DMA - without DMA the hard drive steals too many CPU cycles from the CDR and software. Nero seems to be the most reliable with the 7502 - of the software I've tried. What a heap of ! Actually I think it's a very reliable drive. My only objection is that the most recent BIOS for the 7502 breaks the drive's ability to write 80min CDRs which worked with earlier BIOS versions. However, given that 80min CDRs seem to be more trouble than they're worth on most drives, I'm not stressing about it. BTW, I think flashing a video card bios is the most dangerous thing that you can do standing still at ground level.;^) Cheaper than risking a BIOS flash on a $750 Mobo with onboard SCSI. :-P (and no I still haven't risked it) Obscanning (kind of): Looks like I have to buy dataptec easy CD deluxe to get packet writing. Packet writing would make backing up scan a lot simpler. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Film grain comparisons
Peter wrote: It might also be worth bearing in mind that the tones of negative film are reversed when they're scanned. So that what is seen as grain in the final scan is actually the gaps between the 'grains'. Quite possibly. Makes sense, anyhow. I don't really think further analysis of film is much help though. IMHO. Where I disagree here is that it's worth knowing which films scan best so that you shoot with the best film in the first place. Using any old film and trying to work backwards to a better result is always going to be more difficult. For my own purposes at least, I'll probably be using slide film where-ever I can. BW photography will be another issue however, so I'm interested to see how tests of BW films come up. Oh - it's *definitely* worth documenting the differences between the structures of slide and neg films and how they influence the results of scans. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: questions
Glenn wrote: but now am wondering if the 2000p makes more sense. any comments on the 2000p?? It's Epson's first attempt at a pigment based printer. The prints havce some problems with metamerism but many seem to report that they look great. At the moment the 1160 is much cheaper and can be used with 3rd party pigment based inks. With OEM 4 colour inks, prints from the 1160 will probably last very well anyway. It's too early to know what the longevity of 2000P prints is like, but theoretically it should be excellent. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
16Mpixel back from Kodak
I guess people with *lots* of money to spend on gear have a new bypass for scanning; http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr2919-33.shtml Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: flatbed for profiling
Richard Wolfson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been using an HP6200C (now 2 yrs old) for profiling with Matchlock. Now that VueScan supports this (USB) scanner, I can bypass HP software entirely. I tried Wiziwyg with a scan from the HP Scanjet IIIc using Vuescan. It didn't work. The greyscales were brown. Maybe Matchlock gives a better result for some reason. Anyway, Wizi gave me *one* decent profile (for photo paper) which is an improvement on none. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpiscanner?)
Mikkel Høj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just out of sheer interest; is it also this quality of film recorders that is used in the motion picture industry? This subject came up once before, and someone said that the recorders used for motion picture work were actually lower in resolution - 2048 lines - since the number of frames to process is much higher and the motion tends to make pixels less noticeable. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Processor speed with the Nikon LS30
=shAf= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can wonder if comparisons can be made, but I use a LS-2000 with a PII/350 ... and an Adaptec 2940U2W controller and two Seagate LVD drives, and have never seen a hint of this problem. I'd say that your hard drives help a *great* deal. Once I get my computer working with UDMA66 I'll try a problem slide again with Nikonscan to see if the jaggies have gone away. Many have pointed to this LS-30 problem, and I don't know that the same problem doesn't exist with the LS-2000 I seem to recall at least one LS2000 owner saying they experienced it. I suspect that other LS2000 owners have had computers so high spec that RAM, CPU speed and drive transfer speed hasn't been an issue. I just tried the problem slide again since I upgraded to 160MB RAM and the jaggies are still there. In the case of my computer at the moment I am convinced it's the fact that the hard drive isn't running in UDMA which means it steals too many CPU cycles. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Vuescan/Old Kodachrome Unable to Focus
Bruce Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nikon specifically say *not* to use ICE on Kodachrome slides in the NikonScan reference manual. I assume this would apply to VueScan for the same reasons (regardless of what they are). As with silver based BW films, ICE will probably fail because the film is almost opaque to Infra-red. I have however used Vuescan's cleaning feature on Kodachrome 64 and it worked *better* on that film than on others! I would *definitely* leave the infra-red channel out for BW (non chromogenic) films, but Vuescan's dust removal filters are worth trying on Kodachrome. If they don't work, turn them off and manually spot the output! Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Negs and backlight
shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW ... I use a LS-2000 ... and I have no idea if these features are available if the software detects a LS-30 ... or even if your scanner comes with the "feeder" adapter(?) AFAIK the only missing settings are the single pass multiscanning and the high bit setting. I think everything else works. Yes, the LS30 comes with all three film holders - slide holder, film strip holder, and film strip feeder. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Conversion of 2700dpi to micrometers
Roger Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob, I may have at least part of the answer. I looked at 3 films under a 400x microscope - Kodak Gold 100, Fuji Provia F, and Kodak Elite Chrome 100. It was hard to find areas of comparable colour and density What was on the pieces of film you were looking at? Would it help if the frame was of a grey card or some other contiguous colour? but my initial impresson is that the "grain" (or dye clumps) in the Gold 100 negative film seem more discrete or separated (you might even say "sharper") than those of the slide films. In the slide films, particularly the Provia F, everything seems to be mushed together in multi-coloured smears, so there are fewer crisp edges to cause aliasing. Interesting - I scanned a piece of Superia 100 the other day to try a tutorial for removing the orange mask (written for Photoshop but I was able to do the same thing in PSP). Part of the process involves getting the mask colour from a piece of unexposed film. I noticed that the "grain" pattern in the unexposed (aliased of course :) had much darker spots randomly across it which sounds like the sort of clumping you describe. But then we already know that Provia 100F is supposed to be much finer grain than Gold 100. :) I photographed all three of them - if there really are visible differences I'll send them along to you. It would be cool to be able to post photomicrographs along with the scans of films - not that I expect you to photograph every type of film but it would be a good demonstration of the issues! Incidentally, a scanning electron microscope probably wouldn't work because it's designed to view surface features of an object rather than a section through it. And only then when coated in gold. :) I expect the film backing and emulsion is too thick to use a transmission EM. And if you sputtered it in gold you'd only potentially be seeing the top layer of the emulsion anyway. :) Maybe X-ray crystallography? Or even better - high resolution MRI. =8^D I wonder if the folks at UQ would let me stick some film in their 2 Tesla field... (ah, scientists and their toys...) The things one does to answer questions from this list...! Actually, I'm really impressed at the breadth of knowledge amongst the list subscribers! Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Best films for Scanners
Could you please tell me your best tips (according to scan quality) of the slide and negative films. What do you think what is better in the fast range (400) slide film or negative ? Tom, I'm just starting an exercise to try to determine which films look best when scanned. What film scanner are you using? For taking pictures of my kids the Velvia and Provia100 are too slow. I am using Provia 400F and Ektachrome Elite Chrome 400, I was reading that both are very grainy but I can't find the big differences between Provia 100 and 400 (slide projector). Kodak in my opinion has warmer colors than Provia. You could try Provia 100F push processed to 400. I've read that this doesn't show much increase in grain. Mihai just posted about new Fuji films which could be worth checking out when they hit the stores. I don't know about others, but my experience has been that slide film shows less grain than negs of the same speed. I guess it's inconvenient, but a flash also allows you to use a slower film. :) Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?)
Tony wrote: 4096 lines means it writes 4096 lines, not that it resolves 4096 lines, and it tells you nothing about how the MTF is degraded by diffusion 'spread' of the CRT image. True, but it ought to be significantly more than 2700dpi. Anyway, I'll try it and see what happens. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Conversion of 2700dpi to micrometers
Tony wrote: The only grains which you can rely on not to cause aliasing are those whose dimensions are at least 2x pixel size (Nyquist) Can someone provide a clear explanation of how the nyquist rule applies to a two dimensional image? I think that would help to explain a lot about the aliasing issue. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpiscanner?)
Roger wrote: I think David is right - I've been using a Polaroid HR6000 (the $4000 model) for a couple of years now. It works perfectly well for PowerPoint-type slides on coloured backgrounds, but I've always advised faculty and students to avoid black text on a white background. The text is never really black and small details fuzz out. Does anyone have the means to edit the USAF target PDF to change the background colour? Maybe make it blue and the lines white instead? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Conversion of 2700dpi to micrometers
Tony wrote: I don't know Fuji's estimation method, but, like Kodak, they probably use an arbitrary visual scale for grain relative to a reference standard. In which case the numbers will not be microns or any convertible unit. Ah, well. Then it's only meaningful as a relative comparison within films of the same brand. Anyway, the reason I posted about the pixel size was to see if anyone had any actual figures on grain size for a comparison. The only grains which you can rely on not to cause aliasing are those whose dimensions are at least 2x pixel size (Nyquist), and in practice perhaps quite a lot bigger because of higher-frequency topographical variations such as irregular shape/edges. OK, so how does that gel with my experience that the only film which has scanned with *no* visible grain or noise of any kind is Provia 100F which has the finest grain of anything I've tried? By your statement above, it should demonstrate aliasing. I'd suggest that the finer grain produces the best result because the CCD is then effectively averaging the colours of many dye clouds, just as using the size reduction function in Vuescan gives less grainy results by averaging actual samples. [snip] but suck it and see observation seems to avoid a lot of tail-chasing. Which is precisely why I'm taking the approach I have. So here's another example of me making simple things complicated again.. Actually I read it as "looking at the result is the only meaningful method open to us", and that's what I want to do. The issues are useful to know, however. Thanks! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: slide film gamut
shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) The color spaces you mention are generally applicable color spaces ... that is, they are device (or media) "independent" color space profiles. For these spaces, you only need concern yourself with if they can enclose the gamut of your film ... or more importantly, maybe you should concern yourself if one of these "working" color spaces is more appropriate for your printer. This may be a bit OT but I've been trying to convince JASC, the makers of Paintshop Pro, to support wider colour spaces than sRGB. Their initial suggestion was to provide CIE LAB space but from what I've read this is not a good space for editing. Presumably they couldn't provide AdobeRGB without copyright/ownership issues, but is there a sensible colour space that's useable and avoids sRGB? Ideally I'd like PSP to support a bunch of colour spaces as other programs do! Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Conversion of 2700dpi to micrometers
1 inch = 25.4mm or 0.0254m 2700dpi = 0.0254/2700 = 0.0941m = 9.4 um per pixel 4000dpi = 0.0254/4000 = 0.0635m = 6.4 um per pixel Roman Kielich wrote: According to Fuji- diffuse rms granularity of Velvia RVP is 9, Provia RDPII 10, Sensia II (RA) 10, Astia RAP 10, Fujichrome MS at EI 100 10, EI 200 11, EI 400 13, EI 800 15, EI 1000 16, Provia 400 RPH and Sensia RH 15, Sensia 200 RM 15, Fujichrom prof 64T 11, Fujicolor NPS 160, NPL 160, NPH, Superia Reala CS , Superia CN, Superia 200 CA, Superia 400 CH - all have rms granularity of 4 Now all I need to figure out is what that means in micrometers. :) If it's already *in* micrometers (and I suspect it may be) then films with RMS granularity less than 10um will look better than those that have higher granularity. But it also means that in many respects you *are* seeing the grain - but the aliasing issue is that the pixel size and grain size are similar - so the randomness of the dye clouds will alias against the linear CCD. Please tell me that the last figures are a typo - Reala and Superia 400CH surely have a granularity of 14 not 4? I find it hard to believe that the grain in Reala is half that of Velvia. I'm certain of the pixel sizes - can someone help me out with the comparison to grain? Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Testing films
I haven't had any major objections to the suggested film test protocol, so could anyone who is interested in providing scans please email me? There's one change which has been suggested to the grey card procedure which sounds like a good idea. I'd rather keep discussions off the list to preserve bandwidth. Reminder - at this point only people with LS30 or LS2000 scanners please! You'll need Vuescan 6.1 as well. Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpiscanner?)
Jim wrote: [snip] the design of general purpose lenses. Even so, the scanner resolution can be calculated but I do not have the equations in front of me. I will try to find them. That would be great! Thanks! The main thing is to get a good sharp image on the film. From what David is saying, this may not be possible. A different test image will probably be necessary where the dominant "colour" is not white. I have a really good one I downloaded off the net but I think I can't reproduce it for distribution. I also may not be able to get the PC with the recorder to *load* such a huge file. The PC doesn't have a lot of RAM. All this *may* be irrelevent depending on the result from the recorder. In any case from my perspective what I was interested in was a consistent image which was made without lenses that can then be scanned to get an idea of film grain on different film types. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?)
David wrote: of them image 4096 pixels but there is a significant difference in sharpness, particularly edge sharpness, as you go up the line. The other thing film recorders are not particularly good at doing black on white particularly when the white is the majority of the image. The edges soften. OK, that's useful info. Still, I'll give it a try with several different test images and see what happens. The point is more to have a consistent test image to work from than to have something from which scientifically valid resolution tests can be gleaned. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Epson x70 orange shift (was Re: how does the mailing list work?)
Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Rob, I hope you realize what you have just done. You have complained about the rehashing of the issue on the Epson-inkjet list (both on this list and on that list) while going ahead and rehashing the very beginnings of the Epson thread on this list. There is not and never has been the quantity of traffic on this list over the issue. I have repeatedly pointed people in the direction of the leben list if they want to know about it, and I have tried to only summarise the issues here because it's OT. I really have no problem with rehashing the issue on various lists and actually think it does a service for those who may not have heard about the problem or are new to it. I *do* have a problem with getting digests from the leben list which are at least 50-60% devoted to ONE printer which I don't own and most of the people on the list don't own. Bob on the Epson list agreed and asked that the thread be restricted to new information and maybe an occasional post as an FAQ. That didn't happen. I do have to wonder about when some one doe rehash it and then complains because the same old arguments get mad repeatedly on not just the original list but on many other related lists. See above. Half of the film scanners list traffic is NOT being devoted to the topic. My suggestion for what it is worth is to go ahead and discuss the issue but stop putting down implicitly others on this or other lists who are continuing to bring up issues and arguments even repeatedly. If the people on the leben list would reply properly instead of including all 14 pages of the previous message, I wouldn't give a damn. But it seems that most are absolutely clueless about netiquette. I've said the last I'm going to say on the topic. Now I'm being flamed for trying to help people who haven't heard about the problem and pointing them in the right direction to find out about it. I don't have an x70 printer anyway, so it's of no significance to me personally. My apologies to Tony and everyone else on the film scanners list for taking up bandwidth when it's at a premium, but I prefer to make a public response to a public flame. Laurie, if you wish to continue this discussion, please email me *off* the list. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?)
There is a company in Rochester NY called, I think, Advanced Imaging. They do these types of targets and are the supplier to Edmunds Scientific. Thanks, David. I'll note that for later reference. I was suggesting the use of the film recorder since I have access to one and while it might not give a scientifically accurate result, it should be cheap and reproducible. It at least gives me the means to get a USAF resolution target onto film so it can be used to test a film scanner without involving lenses and optics of a 35mm camera. Regards, Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Nikon film test image protocol (long)
Comments please - off the list! I am posting this protocol to the list in general so that people more knowledgeable than I can comment. Please direct comments to me *directly*. Please do NOT make this into a list thread. I would much rather iron out the bugs off the list than to take up bandwidth of people who are not interested. This is also in view of current bandwidth issues of the list. If you would like to take part, and have a Nikon scanner, please email me for the target files. Please *don't* take any photos until people have had the chance for feedback in case the protocol needs modification. I don't think any changes to the actual photo- graphic process will be needed, possibly only the scanning. Thanks in advance, Rob = Introduction: Why test films? Since I bought my Nikon LS30, I've been suprised by the intensity of "grain" in scans - or inkjet prints made from those scans - compared to photographic enlargements of the same size using the same source film. It turns out that this "grain" is an artifact of the scanning process, caused by the interference between the spacing and size of the CCD elements and the random film dye clouds. The effect is enhanced by the collimated light source used by the Nikon scanner and the sharpness of its focus. Other factors may also be involved. While scanning various films, it has become obvious that there are huge differences in the "grain" that appears in the resulting image. Consequently, it makes sense to use the films that demonstrate this effect the least! What is indended: o To give some visual, qualitative guide to which films scan best on Nikon scanners (and probably others by inference) What is NOT intended: o It is not a buyer's guide to film scanners, hence only Nikons are used in the testing process o It is not a means to quantitatively measure the performance of Nikon scanners. More rigorous testing would be required. o It is in NO way a comparison of the sharpness of various cameras, lenses or even film. The appearance of "grain" is the issue here, not the sharpness of the target image. It is entirely possible that a film may seem grainy when scanned, but not when printed photographically, and the same goes for sharpness. Caveat: Your mileage may vary, but I already know that the differences in "grain" can be huge (eg. between Sensia II 100 and Provia 100F slide films). What targets were chosen and why? 1) Bob Murphy suggested using the cross target. Photographed as specified above, it gives an idea of the interference between the "grain" and straight lines, as well as the intensity of the "grain" in areas of a single colour. 2) Photographing a grey card was suggested since it is a standard target in film resolution tests and is calibrated in colour. 3) I suggested the use of the USAF resolution target since it gives some idea of the separation of parallel lines in scans, and hence resolution. Anyone who knows how to interpret this target should be aware that the line pair resolution from this test should *not* be regarded as an accurate measurement of the film resolution, scanner resolution, or combination. It should *only* be used as a guide to compare different films. The Protocol for target scans == Part 1: Preparing the targets I printed the USAF and Cross targets on my Epson Stylus 700 using Epson Photo paper on A4 paper at 1440dpi. If you don't have a colour printer of comparable (or better) resolution, do not print the cross target, but print the USAF target on A4 paper using a laser printer of at least 600dpi. The grey card should be a standard Kodak 10x8 photographic grey card (other brands could be used assuming they are proper calibrated cards). A4 and US letter are sufficiently similar in size! Part 2: Taking the photos 1. You will need an SLR camera with spot metering and a 28mm lens or 28mm-"n"mm zoom set to 28mm, preferably with aperture priority. 2. Use a tripod to ensure no movement 3. Tape the target to a flat, vertical surface outside in open but solid shade (not dappled light from a tree or in full sun!) 4. Position the camera 2 metres from the target. The camera's focus ring should be sufficient as a guide, but preferably check with a measuring tape to the film plane. 5. Carefully focus the camera on the target and center it in the viewfinder. Photograph in landscape orientation NOT portrait! 6. Set the exposure for at least f8. The camera should be allowed to determine correct shutter speed using spot metering. Do not use exposure compensation or flash. 7. Photograph the target. 8. Preferably photograph the other targets overlaid on the first so the camera is never moved and the conditions are as similar as possible. You may need someone to hold the grey card in place - they're too expensive
Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans
Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [lots of stuff snipped] 5yrs later I'm still ignorant, but at least I know I am ignorant. Did anyone even look at these samples or wonder why the hell they were so different when the protocol said they should be the same? Did anyone play around with them and try and improve them to see what the potential was actually there? It appears not. OK, Tony. Rather than let this whole exercise dissolve into a flame war about methods, intentions, and so on, do you (and Ian Lyons, who also has strong opinions on this subject) have practical suggestions for how the data should be presented and viewed? I'd like to think that it's possible to get some useful information from the group scanning effort, and I *don't* think it's productive to simply throw our hands in the air and say it's all too hard. Otherwise, we're just throwing opinions around with no focussed approach to resolving issues. I'm actually kind of glad this discussion is happening, since I've started looking at the film "grain" issue, and this helps in how the results of my investigations are presented. At the moment, choosing films that scan well, and finding methods of processing those scans to get the best result is my main concern with film scanning. I'm not going to be changing film scanners any time soon, so debates about which scanner is better than the other are not important to me. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Slide scanning on the Minolta Scan Multi II
Clark Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I couldn't seem to get Viewscan to alter the exposure at all using the Options-Exposure adjustment. With auto exposure enabled, I get a number of something like 7.3 in the exposure box. If I disable the auto exposure and put in a number like 15 I see no change, even on rescanning. I get no noticable change even setting it to 75. My guess is that when you changed the settings, you rescanned from the memory not from the device. After changes like this you must rescan the preview from the device. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: [No Subject]
Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AH-HA!! I suspected as much! No USB might upset a few new Mac users, though--Pleasing everybody is Hard Work. There's USB-SCSI converters aren't there? Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Appearance of grain in Vuescan - a user issue?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spent a few hours analyzing all the raw data I have from Q60 scans, and it looks like this grainy/sandy/aliased pattern is present in all film scanners, regardless of the model. Thanks Ed! It's cool to have someone able to try scanning the same image on a bunch of scanners - same operator. ;) It would be interesting if people could test out the Kodak Supra films to see if the scans turn out smoother. Kodak claims they were designed to be scanned, so it's probably worth a test. If anyone can, and has a Nikon scanner, please let me know. I'll have the exact procedure shortly. I don't think the "supra" films are on sale in Australia. You might experiment with defocusing the scanner to see if this reduces the appearance of grain. Using the "scrub" filter has the effect of reducing grain while simultaneously reducing dust and scratches. The defocussing can be corrected with some unsharp masking. However, I want to find out which films show the least grain in the first place. :) Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?)
James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With a film target there is very likely a limiting resolution of 50 to 60 line pairs/millimeter (2540 to 3048 ppi). Resolution should be measured at high contrast using an etched glass plate at some known spatial frequency and line width. I believe it would be difficult to determine ultimate resolution using the Kodak target. There are resolution targets available on glass plate and etched in metal but these may be impossible to use with a film scanner. Does anyone have any comment about my idea of writing the USAF resolution target onto film using a film recorder? I was thinking that if it was done using a really fine grained film, it would be a useful way of getting a reproducible target for use in different scanners. K64 or K25 may be the only options unless I can get updated film settings for the recorder (which I think is a Polaroid). Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Nikon Apparent Grain (was Re: Nikon LS-30/Vuescanquestions)
Roman Kielich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All modern films have a multilayer construction, each R, G, B - sensitive layer consists of 2 or 3 layers of different speed (grain size). The bigger the grain, the bigger the speed. If you underexpose a film, you record an image in more sensitive layer, which is grainier. That construction allows for a bigger exposure latitude. And that's precisely my concern about underexposure. I've underexposed enough film to have seen the increase in grain. :) why do you need 28 mm lens at 2 m distance to measure/assess the grain? Because it makes the target a predictable size. the image doesn't have to be sharp to determine grain size. No, but remember it's not the *real* grain we're looking at here. It's the result of aliasing. According to Fuji- diffuse rms granularity Thanks for the figures! They'll come in very handy. Does anyone have similar specs for other brands like Kodak, Ilford, and Konica? Please email them to me. The point of the exercise I want to do is not to accurately measure the grain of a given film. The scanner isn't capable of that. The point is to scan various types of film and see which ones have grain/dye structures that generate the least aliasing. In other words, the ones which have the least "grainy" look in the scanned result. It's a purely subjective measure, but I want to use standard targets for consistency in the images being compared. I think I now have all the materials I need to come up with a protocol. If anyone with a Nikon scanner (LS30 or LS2000) would be prepared to take a couple of photos on their favourite film for this purpose, please email me. I would prefer to stay with Nikon scanners at the moment for consistency and the fact that the Nikons appear to see more "grain" that other scanner brands. For this exercise, the differences between the LS30 and LS2000 should be negligible. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
OT: Epson x70 orange shift (was Re: how does the mailing list work?)
Bruce Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I've seen this site as well. Shocking images, true, but I haven't seen the problem myself. The effect was a lot more mild than I expected. From the noises being made on the inkjet list, it sounded like the end of the world - but then if I had sold a print for a large amount of money and the client returned it due to orange shifts, I'd be worried too. I've used Photo Paper and Premium Glossy Photo Paper and not seen anything even vaguely like these examples. I take it from your response that you are experiencing these colour shift problems Rob? We've printed on EPP but not PGPP, and not noticed the shift - but it can be so slight that you really need a test like the one where half the image is covered to show it. Maybe North America inherently has more atmospheric ozone? My own printer is a 700 but we have a 1270 at work. The 700 inks fade, but don't orange shift. ;) My question was not who has heard of the problem so much as who has actually experienced them. It seems to me that there are a few people making a lot of noise. My impression is that there's a small number of professional users who are very picky that have started a panic amongst non-professional users. For those professional users or anyone who wants to sell the prints they make, it's a major issue. It's less of an issue for others - unless they have a particularly high ozone environment and don't frame their prints behind glass. Regardless, I think Epson is making a mistake if they don't reformulate the ink as well as the paper. I'll wait a few months longer before I make my own assessment I guess. I've only had the printer about 3 months. Also, the new paper is due out soon(ish) and that may help alleviate the problem. Needless to say I'm keeping my paper purchases to a minimum for a while! I was suprised to see that Harvey Norman in Brisbane is still selling PGPP. Anyway, this is OT and should go to the Epson list (oh god no) if anywhere. No sign of the bandwidth wastage there settling down. How many times can you state and restate the same thing? Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
OT: Re: experiencing the 1270 orange shift
Gordon Tassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a little off thread because it it switches from dye to pigment inks. Have any of you who use 3rd party or Epson's new pigmented inks seen a shift in colors after a relatively short time. I've seen no shift in Generations inks at all. There's been no reported shifts in prints from the 2000P which is the only Epson that has OEM pigmented inks. There *have* been reports that metamerism causes the colours in 2000P prints to look different depending on the light it's displayed in. I also haven't seen bad shifts in my OEM prints with the Stylus 700, but also the prints have not been constantly exposed to light. So far, they've been printed and stored. I don't feel confident enough about the life of OEM ink on the 700 to actually sell the prints, and with the AUD so low against the USD, Generations inks are too expensive. For those in North America with Epsons pre 870/1270, the Generations inks look excellent *if* you're also prepared to spend money on profiling. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans
Farzan S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a statistician, I must agree with David. Really, this is a futile exercise and drawing conclusions based on it would be a mistake. Oh, come on. If that's the only "right" attitude we might as well all unsubscribe from the mailing list because any information we might glean here is questionable and not worth risking. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans
sirius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doing testing by scanning just any peoples slide doesnt make any sense and makes the tests in my opinion pretty worthless. The point of scanning other people's slides was to scan a slide which was causing problems on one scanner to see if the same problems occurred on another. It gives some sort of guide as to whether *any* scanner would have problems with that particular slide. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Canoscan FS2710
Ed wrote: Does the Canoscan FS2710 have ICE?? No. If so, was it Nikon technology? No, it was licensed to Nikon by the company that wrote it. Is it the same in every scanner? Meaning if a scanner has ICE, is it universal in what it does? If it *is* ICE(tm), yes. But various scanners have software for dust and scratch removal. AFAIK, ICE is the most effective and requires an Infra-red channel on the scanner in addition to RGB. I think only the LS30, LS2000 and Minolta Scan Elite (?) support it directly of the current scanners. Ed has written dust and scratch removal into Vuescan which can work without the IR channel but it works better *with* it. I can't comment about other software such as the routines in the Polaroid interface. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans
Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone please post the URL of the Group Scan site. http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/ Regards, Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Vuescan/Photoshop color differences
Sure you can. For $199 you can get the new MC-7 Spider from Color Vision which is quite a nice, accurate and fast device. Wow, that's almost reasonable :) Half what I believed was the entry level, I believe there's now some really good bundles of the Mc7 and profiling software, so it's worth checking before getting the Mc7 on its own. Regards, Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: how does the mailing list work?
Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAICR now the 1520 was the A3 format 720dpi 3-colour precursor to the 1200? Prints will seem rather gritty. An upgrade to the 1200 or 1270 would make a big improvement, comparable to C41. In some ways better. Given the noise on the Epson inkjet list about the 1270, I wouldn't advise anyone to buy one until the ink and paper issues are resolved. The 1160 is a four colour printer which gives excellent output, the ink fades slower, and you can use continuous ink systems and 3rd party archival inks with it. The 1270 can *only* be used with OEM ink. If John Cone makes a version of Piezography for the 1520, it would make it a much more useful printer. I'd suggest that the poster checks out the digest version of the leben inkjet list at www.leben.com Rob PS The output from the 1270 on Epson Premium Glossy paper is awesome, but there is a problem with prints getting an orange cast over time. Obscanning - I must try printing one of my Nikon scans on the 1270 at work. :) The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: determining scanner's native gamut
shAF wrote: For the sake of archiving LS2000 scans, I've been trying to find the right wide-gamut color space. For archiving purposes I'm saving the raw LS30 scans from vuescan. That way if the cropping tools improve later, I have the raw data to work with. It's not limited by colour space. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans
David Hemingway wrote: I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various levels of knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control. But hopefully with testing of the same films on different machines using vuescan helps. The protocol used relies on a single version of vuescan, and it's the program doing the adjustments for the main scan. The operators have very little effect on the result in this instance. The best example of this is Tony Sleep's experience in his scanner testing effort. When he started he had users send him scans of a Q60 target and based his results on those scans. When he reviewed the SS4000 I was very insistent he base his review on him doing the scans himself. And I'm sure everyone on the list has great respect for Tony's abilities and expertise. However, Polaroid is the only vendor (I know of) contributing to the list, and it's unlikely we could get the co-operation of all the vendors. Rigorous testing with one scanner wouldn't really be fair unless the same methods were applied to all the scanners in the exercise. I think the ongoing "anti-aliasing" thread is a good example. The originator of the thread though he was seeing silver grains when in fact he was not. I don't know if it's me you're speaking of here. I know enough about film chemistry to know that the only place I'm likely to see silver grains is in classic BW film. Otherwise we're looking at dye clouds. The word "grain" is used in the discussions in the dictionary sense for an effect in the image rather than the literal sense of silver grains in the film. English is difficult sometimes because of its tendency for misinterpretation. I feel I should also point out that the theory of "grain aliasing" is just that - a theory. I happen to believe it's correct, but as far as I know, there's been no scientifically valid testing to prove it. I think everyone is working on the basis that it's intuitively obvious that the theory matches the results, therefore the theory is correct. As I am from a manufacturer I am/was a litle apprehensive in writing this. Hope you will not think it is "sour grapes". Give the level of control I think you need to be very careful in the conclusions drawn. David, I don't think Polaroid will lose any sales over the information in the group scans investigations. The SS4000 really doesn't have any competition in the marketplace at the moment - other than from the Artix 4000 which is almost identical except for the critical firmware and software. For me at least, the group scanning exercise is an opportunity to see the same films scanned on my scanner and others in a reasonably consistent way, so I can see details my scanner may miss. Knowing what is and isn't possible gives me some idea of how much effort to spend on trying to improve scans. FWIW I was going to buy a SS4000 before I decided on the LS30, and the *only* reason I was forced to change my mind was cost. I still believe that in it's price bracket, the SS4000 is the best scanner I know of on the market. Unfortunately, we can't all afford it. Rob (buttering up? No, just stating the facts as I see them) Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: determining scanner's native gamut
shAF wrote: Thanx ... but it sure is ugly!! ...*smile*... That's because it's the raw unadjusted data. NKLS2000LS30_P_SDC.icm ..., and it looks damn good!!! ... ^but^ I am ending up with too much blue, and too little green in the neutral areas ... the gray border and the grayscale. You'd need to ask Ed about that. I hadn't intended to imply that the raw scan was useful for anything other than avoiding rescanning the same film frame and archiving the raw data. That way as the crop quality in Vuescan improves, you can recrop the original data without digging up the film again. The raw data won't have *any* colour adjustments, so it's bound to look ugly and be difficult to adjust - especially if it's a scan of a colour neg. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
