[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.5 beta 8 Available
>> the automatic alignment of the infrared and rgb passes will be released in beta 9 in the next day or so. Hi Ed, I believe similar techniques could be used to improve/enable multi-scanning on units with less than accurate alignment. This would certainly benefit many scanners. Is it practical - do you have the time ? regards, Steve PS Keep up the good work - good product - outstanding customer support. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed
1) small (9-18GB) SCSI disks are close to the price of similar size IDE disks - the SCSI disks are a little faster due to the interface. 2) large (36GB+) SCSI disks are progressively more expensive than similar size IDE disks - but they are usually considerably faster. 3) It's quite cheap to use IDE raid striping (especially if it is a feature of your motherboard and hence almost free) and this will often be cheaper and faster than a single fast SCSI drive. 4) SCSI raid striping whilst more expensive (particularly with larger disks) is faster than IDE raid striping 5) raid striping is less reliable than a single disk of similar size. 6) Even the relative price difference of large SCSI drives to large IDE drives is small when you consider the "total system ( computer,monitor,scanner,printer,camera,lenses,other accessories)" 7) MAXIMUM disk WRITE performance WILL be acheived if you can dedicate sufficient (enough for one image) system RAM to file cache. eg. 35mm at 4000dpi is approx 110MB so a dedicated 128MB of RAM (£10 Nov2001 -sadly £30 now) for file cache will maximise (provided your not too quick selecting our next op) write performance regardless of whether you have striped 15000rpm SCSI disks or single 5400rpm IDE disk. 7) You will invariably read files more than you write them. I think that covers it ... - it's my only words on the subject regardless. ... you pay your money and make your choice. Steve PS For the record I currently have IDE drives with lots of file cache. I have yet to see acceptably priced SCSI disks of the size I required. - Original Message - From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:06 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed >>Moreno, on my desk right now I have 4 x 18.2 SEALED NEW IBM U-SCSI-3 bought from PCPARTSINC www.pcpartsinc.com who is a legitimate dealer and more over is a Company so Police and FBI can go and inspect whenever they want. Eache of the drives costed 100$ and they NEW + SEALED + UNDER 3 Years warranty worldwide (I am in Italy and I have already used the warranty on an EXPENSIVE 36GB U-SCSI-160 with free substitution) Sometimes the world is dynamically changing and paradigms are not fitting to everything for every situation.<< I'm not doubting that you can get good deals on surplus drives. IBM makes excellent drives, and if you can get them at a good price, more power to you. The price you paid is not what the typical selling price would be be from your local computer dealer. Here in Canada, a new IBM 18gb 10k U160 drive sells for $350 to $375. For the same amount of money, you can also buy a WD Caviar 100gb 7200 rpm drive. That's more than five times the amount of storage for the same amount of money. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: Silverfast
Hi everyone I'm back. Last time I spent quite some time complaining about how Silverfast would lock your machine if you had anything on your PC IDE controllers other than Hard disk drives and CD ROMs. So its time to redress the balance. I would like to congratulate them on fixing the problem. At least I think they have, but as I have a somewhat different PC as well as a new version of Silverfast I can only be sure if I reinstall the other version . Anyway I am a happy punter, Silverfast works and works well. Steve
filmscanners: Silverfast Ai HDR option
I have Silverfast Ai and IT8 (supplied with the Artixscan 4000) and with this software it is possible to output HDR scans which are the raw data. I think that the best scans to archive are the raw files. As later you can return to these and use new better processing techniques become available without having to rescan the image. In the past I have found trying to use the HDR option extremely difficult without the Silverfast HDR software. But now Silverfast have included a tick box that allows the gamma (2.2 windows) correction to be applied to an HDR scan. For some reason I always ended up with loads of noise if I used Photoshop to apply the gamma correction. With the new option Silverfast a gamma corrected raw scan can be loaded into Photoshop 6 and by assigning the Silverfast Calibration profile and then converting it to the internal profile. This gives you an almost identical result to the usual Silverfast Ai output but you get to work on the full 12bit data in photoshop. For the lazy auto levels in PS6 produces a very similar result to the auto adjustments in Silverfast. Most of the simpler to use functions in silverfast can be performed in PS6 and it can all be done at 48 bit resolution. I am no expert but this seems to work well for slides. Negatives are probably all together different due to Silverfast specialist colour cast removal algorithms. What are the downsides ? Steve
filmscanners: Silverfast lamp lightness option
Reading Ian lyons very helpful tutorial "Silverfast 5 and the Polaroid SS4000 : Part 1 - Basic steps to IT-8 calibration", I found he used a value of 10 for lamp lightness. He noted that this allowed him to maximise shadow detail. Sounds good to me, but how do I know what value would be good for my (mechanically) similar Artixscan 4000 ? After a little thought I came up with the following technique: I used IT-8 slide with the HDR option. I made an initial scan and used PS to check the RGB values in the grey scale area for rectangles "0" and "23" which I think should be pure white and pure black respectively. I found the white was well short of 255 in every channel. So I tried progressively higher values in lamp control until it became almost completely 255 in every channel. I then backed the lamp control off until the values were generally 255/254 in every channel. This by my reckoning maximised the bandwidth as the black was still showing RGB 0/1 or sometimes 2. I then recalibrated using the IT8 slide. I checked a before and after scan nd I do not appear to have introduced loads of noise. My final value was 24 where as Ian ended up at 10. Does my technique of arriving at the final lamp setting make sense ? Can anyone suggest anything better ? Any nasty flaws ? Steve
filmscanners: Filmscanners: Should I replace Artixscan 4000 with the Nikon ?
>From what I saw on Steve's Digicams the new Nikon looks amazing. Does it really automatically produce such imaculate scans from what can be best described as well worn originals ? I have never completely got the hang of removing flaws in PS and it just takes me forever (around a hour) - it's also quite a strain staring at the screen looking for every last dust speck. I have loads of slides that I still wish to scan and the increased colour depth would no doubt be helpful. Apparently my local shop will flog my Artixscan on commision for just over £500 to me so I'd have to find about £700-800. As I see it - if the Nikon really is that good the benefit in the quality and the saving in my personal time will soon make up for the money. A firewall card would be nice too. So just how good is the Nikon - particularly compared to the Artixscan 4000 and the much the same Polaroid SS4000? Steve
Re: filmscanners: Canon Flatbed D2400UF
There are two issues involved scanning head speed and data transfer speed. Unless you have dual interfaces it would be difficult to tell if the scanning head is held back by a slower interface. If you consiser a full resolution scan of A4 you get approx 11(inch)*8(inch)*2400*4800*6(16 bit resolution RGB) = roughly 6GB. This will take a minimum of 67.5 minutes on USB and a minimum of 2 minutes on firewire. But since this is really a film scanner list then if we consider the Nikon 4000 claims a 38 second scan time - the best it could achieve via USB is 85 secs. A significant saving I would say but some people are more patient. Assuming you use this for 35mm transparencies the file size would be about 93Mb this is just over 60 seconds on USB and about 1.86 sec firewire. These are the limiting speed of the interface in practice the scanning head speed and how long it takes to position the scanning head all play their part. At 35mm it may be acceptable. But the problem scales up rapidly for larger scans. USB would take 46 secs per square inch of scan firewie 1.38 secs per square inch of scan at best resolution on this scanner. So even medium format is starting to get slow with USB at these sorts of resolution. The Nikon spec shows that the scan head could be moving at over twice the USB speed. Firewire is 400Mbit per sec (50MB) max , USB is 12Mbit max per sec (1.5MB). Steve P.S. How the hell would you process a 6GB image! - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: filmscanners: Canon Flatbed D2400UF > A few people on the list have mentioned this scanner. PCWORLD the US magazine > not the UK store has a test of it at > http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,44621,00.asp > > They claim that the USB interface is much slower than a SCSI or Firewire interface > and this causes it to get a lower score. I have seen this remark a few times > in scanner test recently. How can they say this when they obviously have not > tested the scanner with a Firewire interface. it could be the scanner that is > the bottleneck not the interface. > > Or is this being picky > > > Eddie Cairns >
filmscanners: Burning CD's
Appologies if this arrives twice. Internet provider has been down - I did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got filtered out by the mailing list server. Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also much more prone to damage. Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the disc away as writables are cheaper and some early computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not read these discs at all. Re-writables are useful for : short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc]) moving some data from one machine to another where there is no decent network or internet connection possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4 discs in rotation - a different one every week) some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you want to test before making the real disc) Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
Re: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs
I wouldn't use 700Mb disks for archival as they are bit like E240 video tapes - the extra storage is provided by pushing the format to extremes. I would say however I used to use almost exclusively 700MB discs in my 10 stack CD player in my previous car. I experienced no problems over a 2 year period despite extreme temperatures inherrent in this environment. Hardly scientific but temps probably ranged from just under 0C to over 40C. 13+ hours CD personal choice music in the boot is great. Steve - Original Message - From: Darrin Zammit Lupi To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:05 PM Subject: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs Does anyone use Fujifilm CD Rs (700MB, recording speed up to 16x) for archiving their pix? any comments? Cheers darrin Darrin Zammit LupiPhotojournalistWebsite http://maltamedia.com/dzammitlupi
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Hi Arthur http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrwmoreinfo.html "operational lifetime of more than 1,000 overwrite or 1 million read cycles, with an expected archival lifespan of well over 30 years" http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrmoreinfo.html "Based on accelerated ageing tests, the lifetime of TDK's CD-R REFLEX has been computed to be well over 100 years. " I am sure have seen in various places that RW is more delicate and has shorter expected lifespan. If you want to catch up some CD meda information try: http://www.cdmediaworld.com Of course if the 30 years is accurate you need not worry as no doubt at some time in the next 10-20 years you will be able to transfer several hundred CD's onto the latest mass archival storage media. Steve - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's > Hi Steve, > > I'll ask the same question I just did of Michael. Do you have any test > reports or other sources I could go to that suggest CD-RW is not stable > for archival storage, versus the stability of CD-R. I have yet to see > this, and was wondering what studies are showing. > > I am aware that CD-RW media is not as universally readable on CD-ROM > units, but I haven't seen the info on loss of info on these disks. > Since they come from the family of the PD, which claim a good shelf > life, I'm rather surprised that they are not considered trustworthy. > > Art > > Steve Greenbank wrote: > > > Appologies if this arrives twice. Internet provider has been down - I > > did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got > > filtered out by the mailing list server. > > > > > > > > Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep > > long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in > > general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also > > much more prone to damage. > > > > > > > > Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the > > disc away as writables are cheaper and > > > > some early computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not > > read these discs at all. > > > > > > > > Re-writables are useful for : > > > > > > > > short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet > > writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc]) > > > > moving some data from one machine to another where there is no > > decent network or internet connection > > > > possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4 > > discs in rotation - a different one every week) > > > > some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you > > want to test before making the real disc) > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM > > > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's > > > > > > I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in > > blank CD > > are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference > > between > > the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think > > that > > Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to > > adjustments in > > the image. > > > > Thanks in advance for your input. > > > >Burt > > >
Re: filmscanners: film scanner software
> "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > VueScan are (also in my opinion for beginners) but if you are concern to > > learn how to scan pictures try a "pro software" and see who much more > > you can get out from your negative or slides. > > That's a big assumption about how much money people have to throw around, > isn't it? Yes, definitely. > If I can get good results with Vuescan for US$40 why would I want > to buy Silverfast just to "try" it?? Silverfast won't give me 10 bits per > channel from my LS30. I suspect Silverfast can. I have recently, I think, found away to extract raw 48bit scans for Silverfast Ai in a way that allows you to later process the file in Photoshop. This makes Silverfast an expensive way to read the data but I did get it bundled with my scanner. The great thing about working this way is I can avoid learning how to use 2 pieces of software. I need to use photoshop with the digicam so now PS can do most operatioons with 48 bit images why should I bother to learn how to process using the scanner software ? (I use mostly slides - colour cast removal from negs could be tricky in PS). > Yes, I know you can get a demo of Silverfast, but IMO it's a > sufficiently complex piece of software that it's difficult to judge from the > demo whether it would be worth buying. You can make a judgement but you would have to invest quite a lot of time. Given the asking price I think many people will give up on the grounds that if costs that much it should be easy to use. I don't think it is. Yes, there are some options in Silverfast that would allow an expert unparalleled control of the image , but (IMHO) you need months (at the very least) of Silverfast scanning experience just to get your head round them. Things aren't helped by the documentation that appears to be comprehensive, but I can rarely find the bit that helps me. The tutorials at www.computer-darkroom.com (thanks Ian) have been much more useful. I think the Silverfast manuals are the only software manuals I've bothered to read - and I'm still struggling! Scan Wizard Pro is much easier and intuitive and you can perform different adjustments for each image when batch scanning. Silverfast appears to apply the same settings to everything in batch mode - so it's auto adjust or forget it. I put some E6 samples I made in July 2000 on my then new Artixscan 4000. At the time it was suggested that the Silverfast image was best. I'm not so convinced it's so clear cut now. The silverfast colours are iffy but the Scan Wizard pro have too much contrast. Which is better ? Interestingly, Vuescan seems to do better than Scan Wizard Pro on the contrast and better than Silverfast on the colours. Have a look and see what you think? http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000.htm If there is any interest I'll redo the images. I am sure the results out of Silverfast are better. I haven't re-tried the Scan Wizard Pro or Vuescan recently. > Silverfast filmscanners who have Silverfast got it bundled with the scanner. > > At least in Australia, OEM bundles are nowhere near as generous as in the > USA. > I don't know what the comparison with Europe is like. > I'm in the UK and generally we get "done over" too. Bundles are less or there is no cashback offer or it costs more. Frequently it's all three! Steve
Re: filmscanners: film scanner software
I have just done some new samples using the latest versions of Vuescan, Scan Wizard Pro and Silverfast and a new webpage to go with them. All the samples use Adobe RGB (1998) colour space. I have noticed that IE5.5 seems to display some of the JPEGs poorly so for a proper comparison you may have to use "save as" http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000_new.htm It would appear Silverfast colour is better than before. Yellow still not too good but overall I think it does produce the best images. The colours are smother, the grey is more neutral and it appears to be slightly sharper (lack of noise ?). I have included a Silverfast HDR image which I opened in Photoshop by assigning the Silverfast calibration file and converting to local RGB. This appears to be a good way to acquire 48 bit data into PS from Silverfast where you only have the Ai module and not the HDR module (even more expense). Steve
Re: filmscanners: film scanner software
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: film scanner software > - SilverFast : designed for heavy-duty production use, without any > requirement for Photoshop manipulation. If you spend all day every day > scanning dozens of originals, it makes perfect sense. Consequently > powerful, hard to learn, and expensive. Fast and good for experts, > otherwise just plain difficult and confusing. > Silverfast does have good quality data manipulation, but has far as I can make out you can't set it up to do multiple scans unless you use auto-mode adjust mode which rather defeats the object. I would hve tought an expert would want to pre-scan all his images. Tweak them all individually and do all the final scans while you go do something else. Sadly it doesn't let you do this unless you use HDR mode for the scanning and then post process the HDR output files from disk. From what I see not much different to doing all the processing in PS. The thing I like best compared to PS is the curves function that easily allows the manipulation of differnt sections of the curve without having to click the other part to stop it moving as well. The colour correction bits are very complex but as I'm using slides and more importantly colour blind I try not to ever tweak particular colours because I usually miss the nasty side effects - until someone points to someone and says "he must been really ill to look that green". > > - Vuescan : replacement for OE scanning softwares, often extending scanner > capabilities. Strange UI belies a lot of power which works best at getting > the maximum into the scan rather than finally correcting it, which is > better done in PS 16 bit mode after approximate VS adjustments. > Consequently slow 2-stage workflow for is for control freaks, but with > excellent scan quality potential. This isn't thst slow if you are simultaneously scanning and processing and not much different to Silverfast HDR raw scans. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Scanner consideration
Hi James Never used the 1640, but I noticed the UK computer magazine liked it whilst having a free browse at Smiths. It was up against some proper film scanners as well as flatbeds. I didn't read it properly and I am not always too impressed with their reviews. They may even have preferred it due to it's versatility and price. £300 is a hell of a lot cheaper than a proper medium format film scanner. How big do you want to print ? I can get a very good A4 and a more than acceptable A3 (to most people) from my 3Mp digital camera. I still decided to go for the 4000dpi film scanner to scrape as much detail as possible from the slide, but I still think 1600x3200 off medium format will produce impressive results at A3. Steve - Original Message - From: "James L. Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:30 PM Subject: filmscanners: Scanner consideration > I have returned my Epson Perfection 1200U Photo scanner and will > be buying a new scanner. I know that a film scanner is the way to > go for scanning negatives and transparencies but I also need a > flatbed scanner. Since most of my transparencies and negatives I > scan are medium format and larger (up to 4 X 5), I can not justify > a film scanner at this time. I am considering the Epson 1640 for > the flatbed and hope that it will give better results than the > 1200. They're specs tout a 3.3 D-Max and 42 bit, a little better > than the 3.0 D-Max and 36 bit that was stated for the 1200. I'm > wondering if anyone on this mail list has experience with the 1640 > and would recommend it. I'd really like to see the new Polaroid > 120 but I'm afraid it may be above my budget limits for now. If > the 1640 will provide anything near the results I'm looking for > that's the route I'd like to pursue. The 1200 was bad to > posterize in the greens and flesh tones with the slightest under > exposed transparency or over exposed negative. Any advice or > recommendations would be appreciated. > > Jim Sims > >
Re: filmscanners: Subject: 4000 ED and updating IEEE 1394 driver in 98 SE
> Under my "general tab" in "system properties" it says my windows version is > :MS win98 4.10.1998,which as far as i know is 98SE. > Thats WIN98 original. SE is 98.10.A. It says second edition between "MS Win 98" and the version number.
Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.0 with LS-30 & Ls-2000
> Cool. Mine is 1.31. Now I just need to decide how to download the 12MB > file. :-P I assume you are worried about failed downloads. I recently downloaded a Music CD Database (about 80MB) . Before I started I downloaded something called Getright from www.download.com . This generally let's you resume downloads from where you left off. There are several other similar programs available at the link. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 dpi
From: "Hemingway, David J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >With our SS4000 the manufacturer originally was going to use a > particular CCD because they had a relationship with the manufacturer. > Polaroid recognized there were higher quality alternatives, and convinced > the manufacturer to change to a much higher quality CCD. I bought a Microtek 4000 as it was significantly cheaper (at the time) than the Polaroid and I could get it supplied with the highly recommended Silverfast. I'm having big trouble with noise in some very dark blue ripples on a Loch. The original is Fuji Velvia. I'm a bit of a novice but maybe it's because the Microtek uses the lower quality alternative. I've no idea as I have never tried the Polaroid I just have difficulty in the really dark areas. So which CCD is in the Microtek 4000. They are widely thought to be same machine in a different box. Steve PS. The slide has been through photo labs at least 4 times and is a disaster for dust and scratches too. Should have got an ICE scanner :-(
filmscanners: Noise in scans - Silverfast v Vuescan
I previously mentioned that I had been suffering some problems with noise with the artixscan 4000. I have been trying to scan (with both Silverfast and Scan Wizard Pro) a slide that is high contrast that looks great when projected. I have been unable to get a usable scan particularly in the area of a very dark area of a loch. I have just tried Vuescan and the result was immediately much better. See: http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000_noise.htm Vuescan also look sharper and the rest of the image looks pretty good too. Previously I have been led to believe that Silverfast was much better on slides but unless someone can tell me what I am doing wrong in Silverfast I'll have to get the plastic out and visit Ed's website. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Medium format in a 35mm scanner?
- Original Message - From: "Asael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:16 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Medium format in a 35mm scanner? > It can be done with the HP Photosmart scanner by not closing the lid all the > way and feeding the MF film via the partially open lid. However, matching up > the two strips is a lot of work since they may (read "will") feed-in at > different angle. > > Asael Photovista is absolutely amazing at stitching images. Yet to see a single join and it even works well on old PC's. Last year I stitched 4x50MB scans with it on an AMD K6 233 with 64MB of memory. I left it expecting it to take almost forever, but accidently noticed it had finished 15 minutes later. The 2 downsides are that it only stitches horizontally (but you can rotate images to stitch in both directions), the other is perhaps more of a problem is you have to output JPEGs. Ultimately I have tried about half a dozen stitching programs, some are very poor, others work well most of the time, but for me only PV seemed work everytime. Try it free here: http://www.mgisoft.com/support/downloads/trial.asp Steve
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
> I believe some scanners (SS4000/A4000T) do not position themselves too well > for multipass - so this is of limited use. I just tried 8x MP with the > artixscan 4000 and there are echos in the image. The result is pretty > useless. I just tried 8x with long exposure (for completeness) and there are no echos. Is this a fluke? Anyway the result looks better still. Steve
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass > The problem with the Long exposure pass option is that most people won't > see the problem areas until they've scanned hundreds of slides. > Yes, it would drive you nuts. > Any area where there's a large bright-dark transition will have problems. > You might try zooming into the image at this point. > What about a slightly underexposed slide (this can produce a better result when projected). I assume the long exposure would help. > I'm going to remove it in 7.0.17 for this reason - I don't want people > to waste a lot of time scanning and then realizing their images are > messed up. How about an irritating pop-up that explains the problem when you select it. I just tried it with a slide that's been causing me grief and it appears to have worked quite well and I can't see any nasty side effects. I admit that right now I'm not a customer, but having tried in vain to get a decent result with Silverfast I found Vuescan much better first time. See: http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000_noise.htm I've come to the conclusion I will have to buy Vuescan too. The long exposure looks quite useful to me in the right circumstances. > > With Minolta scanners, you'll get better results using the single-pass > multi-scanning feature in VueScan (Device|Number of passes). > I believe some scanners (SS4000/A4000T) do not position themselves too well for multipass - so this is of limited use. I just tried 8x MP with the artixscan 4000 and there are echos in the image. The result is pretty useless. > Regards, > Ed Hamrick >
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass > In a message dated 5/4/2001 11:06:17 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > What about a slightly underexposed slide (this can produce a better result > > when projected). I assume the long exposure would help. > > VueScan already automatically lengthens the exposure to maximize > the intensity of the scanned image without saturating the brightest > pixels. > > However, the "long exposure pass" option did two passes, one with > a properly exposed image and one with a significantly overexposed > image (usually 6x). This saturates all pixels above 1/6 of the maximum > intensity, and then these two passes were being combined. > > The problem with this is that overexposed pixels will bleed charge > into adjacent pixels, and the amount of bleeding is unpredictable > (and it's also directional sometimes, bleeding mainly to either the > left or right). > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick > OK ed I've coughed upo my $40 as Ican't get Siverfast to behave but I am less than convinced that long exposure isn't a useful option. I've redone my tests and you can see the results at (refresh if necessary) : http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000_noise.htm Strangely 8x with long exposure is much better than 8x (with the echo). I tried 8x 4 times with similar results - I tried 8x with long exposure twice with similar improved (no echo) results. Is this a coincidence ? - seems unlikely to me. Why does 8x work better with long exposure? To be fair the noise levels are much better than Scan Wizard Pro or Silverfast. Steve
Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
> My original Epson Stylus Photo ended up with a couple of clogged jets > which I could not clear. Possibly my use of third-party ink was to blame; > or possibly I let the printer sit too long (6 months?) without being used. > It never occurred to me to complain to Epson; I just bought a new Stylus > Photo. A number of people have had this problem with Epsons. It's probably been done on this list before, but: Turn the printer off by the button on the front - they park they're heads. (Quite why anyone just pulls the plug on a precision instrument is beyod me). Don't leave the printer on if your not going to use it. (Head parking again) If your not using it for a length of time - there are quite a few recommendations here, but I go for printing a test page or nozzle check (on cheap or even waste paper) every couple of weeks. If your out for months I heard something involving sealed plastic bags but I'm not sure as I never had to the face the problem. I think I'd leave it with a trust worthy friend to use or just turn on and print the test page. Yet to have a problem (fingers crossed), but on the other hand if it fails you'll have a good excuse (for your nearest and dearest) to buy the latest version which are still getting faster and better at an amazing rate. Steve
Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
Definitely 5 colour + black. This is the main reason for the better photographic quality. http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/inkjet/styphoto2000p/spec.htm Steve > If I remember correctly, the 2000P Color Cart is 3 color vs. 5 for the 1270 > > MIke
filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Today I'm going for the dual prize of most boring picture (see attachment) and most dumb question ever on the list. Mark asked me about a problem in the background of some pictures http://www.grafphoto.com/grain.html The problem is that my sample (a bit of sky) from a slide projects with perfect continuous tones at any size even 40 inch by 60 inch and it still looks reasonably sharp (within reason) but yet when I scan it at 4000dpi I get a grainy effect that will show up in an A3 print and a soft image in general. The problem often gets worse with sharpening . I have found that a unsharp mask threshold 9+ usually avoids sharpening the graininess. Alternatively a gaussian blur removes it but if you do this to the whole image you end up with an even more soft image but on the plus side you can sharpen it more aggressively and use a threshold of 3-4 which means much more gets sharpened. Obviously carefully selecting the sky/problem area and blurring that separately is probably the best option but it takes ages to do this accurately and you still may get noise problems elsewhere. Am I right to assume the noise is grain, CCD noise and chemical faults on the film ? Does every see this noise ? Should I see less with SS4000/A4000 scanner (is mine and Mark's a bit duff) ? And what do you do about it ? Steve <>
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
I think I would clone them out. Steve - Original Message - From: "Harry Lehto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40) > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > OK, it sounds like some sort of aberration in the scanner lens system. > > Is there anyone near you with another film scanner you could send > > a sample slide to in order to test it? Maybe with a Polaroid scanner? > > > > Out of interest, does it make any difference if you insert the slide into > > the scanner the other way up? > > Yes, it makes a difference... I did some further testing last night. > I turned the slide 90 degrees, and sure enough the ghost rotated 90 > degrees in repect to the stars (that is if you keep the orientation of > the stars fixed) => so clearly due to the scanner and not the slide. > > Furthermore, I measured the effect on about 10 bright stars in the field, > and noticed the following behavior. Along the line that is parallel with > the long edge and goes through the center of the slide you seem to have no > ghosts, but as you approach the longer edges of the slide you see these > the ghosts emerging from the stellar image, the closer you are to one > of the long edges of the slide the more pronounced the effect is. You can > understand this as internal reflections (as was suggested by Art in > the messages that arrived last night) if you consider that the scanner > scans perpendicular to the long edge of the slide. Clearly such a process > is optimized to the centerline. Actually the ghost images are also there > on the center line, but they are superimposed on the stellar images > making a nearly unnoticeable halo. > > > Yes, replying to several of you, I have a neighbour just down the road who > has a scanner too.. It's not a polaroid, but a Canon FS 2710. So I ran the > same picture on through his scanner - similar resolution. And boy that > must have been one of those moments, when I was happy to see an optical > distortion. A similar phenomenon was visible in the images scanned with > the Canon scanner, but here the image looked like a small comet (similar > to a coma distortion), but with two separate tails, a red one and a > green one. So instead of one blue-green ghost spot, there were two more > noticeable tails of different colors pointing in the same general > direction as the spot is in the picture scanned with the Nikon. The size > of the distortion was more or less similar to what I had in the Nikon > scanner. It appeared that the tails had a significantly higher level > than the ghost spot I saw with the Nikon. It appears that I hit the ( > not so bad afterall) limit of the Coolscan IV scanner. > > > It seems also that this phenomenon may be a common problem to desktop > scanners. I think you should see it at any bright source (e.g streetlight) > against a (nearly) pitch black background and here only on edge of the > light that is closer to the edge of the slide. It should not effect > significantly ordinary day time images. > > The web reference had one typo in it... So here they are again. > http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/crop0016.JPG > http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/crop0020.JPG > > Since it appears that I'll have to live with it, are there any remedies > for removing this effect from the images? It appears that if I could scale > the image by a few % in y direction only, skysubrtact and multiply > the new image by a suitably small number, I would have a "mask" that I > could subtract from the orginal image to get rid of the effect. Can > this be done easily? > > Regards > Harry > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
Congratulations to Lynn - how long did it take and how many images have you archived ? I am attempting a similar project and finding it difficult even to get going. When I bought my scanner I had already seen the results (even A3) that could be had with a 3Mpixel digicam (which is technically 8 bit colour depth and less than 0.75Mpixel Red Blue and 1.5Mpixel Green) and an Epson 1270. I figured with a decent scanner 20Mpixel (full RGB 12bit colour) image A3 would be a breeze provided the original image was OK. Oh dear, how wrong you can be. After the initial shock of my first scan I decided that this noise was normal and caused by grain, CCD noise and faults in the film and have been struggling around these problems ever since. Some slides are relatively easy others are near on impossible. Obviously I don't want to print them all A3 but I do want to archive them to CD at full scan resolution dust and other imperfections removed and colour balanced. At a later date I would then like to get the best print possible, from any image selected, with minimal fuss. I could accept that most images will only ever be viewed on the screen or printed 6x4 and this would be easy, but I am hoping to be able to print : most A3 minimum (roughly 4000dpi slide scan equates to 300dpi print) a few bigger still (after all I have had good 20x30 Cibachromes) and for the odd photographic duffer that is special for other reasons - anything will do! Am I asking too much ? To date I have only seen my own 4000dpi scans so I don't really know if these are the facts of scanning life or if my machine is duff : There will be significant noise in all continous tones ? The scanned image at any comparable size will always appear terribly soft compared to when projected unless significantly sharpened in software which generally amplifies all the flaws ? High contrast images (most slides) are a complete pain in the rear ? It will take forever just to figure out how to use the damn thing. There will always be dust (and I should have got a scanner with ICE so don't bother to rub my nose in it, please) Steve
Re: filmscanners: Corrupted Photo CD
Did you ever look at this particular CD before - it looks more like a fault prior to the CD being written. A media error is not likely to give such linear lines - it is more likely to refuse completely or miss blocks of the picture. Does your reader have trouble reading the disc i.e. does it make a noise which changes frequently? If it does try another machine/reader (cd-writers are generally more forgiving). Steve - Original Message - From: "Larry Berman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:18 PM Subject: filmscanners: Corrupted Photo CD > I just had something scary happen. I put in a Kodak Photo CD to demonstrate > how Photoshop allows choice of resolution when opening and discovered that > every image on the disk had corrupting horizontal lines. I hadn't opened > the CD in about two years. > > Any thoughts. > > I just created a web page with an example image. > http://www.bermangraphics.com/problems/photocd.htm > > Larry > > > *** > Larry Berman > > http://BermanGraphics.com > http://IRDreams.com > http://ImageCompress.com > > *** > >
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
How about wrap them in groups of say 10 in food wrap (cling film in the UK)
and include some silica gel which could be replaced every couple of years.
Should be very cheap and I dont see why it shouldn't work. A more expensive
but more durable option would be to replace the cling film with air tight
plastic food boxes - you'd still need the cling film.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:47 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
> On storage of CDs
>
> Out of curiosity, anyone live in humid coastal areas (eg Florida)?
>
> My CDs develop mould very quickly, the only workable solution seems
> to be these demhumidifier cabinets. Gets filled fast, and cabinets
> are expensive.
>
> Needless to say, mould has attacked many early slides ('twas young
> and careless then).
>
> Anyone has better and/or cheaper alternatives?
>
> Cheers
> Lawrence
>
> --
> Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>
>
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Interesting theory and there may well be some truth in there. Whether it is visible to the human eye or not it is largely consistent and contains little CCD noise as I can see the exact same patterns in repeated scans. I have also had a look at the Vuescan "medium clean" which as I have no IR I think it is just grain reduction. Having looked quite carefully at with and without I think Ed's using Gaussian blur at a setting equivalent to about 0.9 in PS - which is the best way I've found to remove it. On the subject of what causes this, I had this from Ian Lyons (http://www.computer-darkroom.com). "All I see is the normal film grain and the effects of blue channel noise which is pretty much inherent in all scanners and many digicams" Steve or - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 12:51 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > Hi Steve, > > I just took a look at your mottled sky within photoshop. I enlarged it, > I sharpened it, I sent it through a spectral analysis, I looked for > encrypted messages or codes, I ... ;-) > > And, you are absolutely right, it is the dullest picture I've ever seen > on this list. ;-) > > OK, enough attempt at humor. > > I am beginning to develop a theory about these anomalies that appear in > scanned images. Is it possible that the CCDs are recording information > outside of the realm of human vision? What I mean is could we be seeing > artifacts of either IR or UV (or other spectrums) information which are > being translated into the visible spectrum? > > When people speak about these oddities, it is often a whole roll > exhibiting the "defect" where another roll of the same film type > doesn't. Could differences in manufacturing, processing or other > chemical or structural differences in the film (say even variations in > the thickness of some otherwise "invisible" film layers (remnants of the > color filters within the film, gelatin layers, even film base) which for > all normal viewing purposes would make no difference at all in the image > quality, even at high magnification, be "captured" via the CCD sensor > process, and then translated to visible artifacts? > > I imagine these things may never be tested for in the manufacturing or > developing processes of the film. Does anyone know if CCDs are tested > for sensitivity outside of the range of the human perceptible spectrum? > > I mean, bees see in UV, and their view of the world is vastly different > from our own. Flowers with pollen and nectar send beacons to bees which > get lost for us in the mix of brilliant colors and fancy shapes... then > again, flowers aren't much interested in having me be attracted to their > nectar or pollen. > > Phil Lippencott: does any of your equipment allow for testing CCD > sensitivity for the IR or UV spectrum (or even higher or lower than that?)? > > So, Steve, that's my "dumb" answer to your exceedingly "dumb" > question... ;-) > > I think we might all be missing something here, simply because it is > outside of our normally responsive reality. > > Comments, criticisms, supporting or other views? > > Art > > > > Steve Greenbank wrote: > > > Today I'm going for the dual prize of most boring picture (see attachment) > > and most dumb question ever on the list. > > > > Mark asked me about a problem in the background of some pictures > > http://www.grafphoto.com/grain.html > > > > The problem is that my sample (a bit of sky) from a slide projects with > > perfect continuous tones at any size even 40 inch by 60 inch and it still > > looks reasonably sharp (within reason) but yet when I scan it at 4000dpi I > > get a grainy effect that will show up in an A3 print and a soft image in > > general. The problem often gets worse with sharpening . I have found that a > > unsharp mask threshold 9+ usually avoids sharpening the graininess. > > Alternatively a gaussian blur removes it but if you do this to the whole > > image you end up with an even more soft image but on the plus side you can > > sharpen it more aggressively and use a threshold of 3-4 which means much > > more gets sharpened. > > > > Obviously carefully selecting the sky/problem area and blurring that > > separately is probably the best option but it takes ages to do this > > accurately and you still may get noise problems elsewhere. > > > > Am I right to assume the noise is grain, CCD noise and chemical faults on > > the film ? > > > > Does every see this noise ? > > > > Should I see less with SS4000/A4000 scanner (is mine and Mark's a bit duff) > > ? > > > > And what do you do about it ? > > > > Steve > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
I'll try this and see how it compares with gaussian blur. I was hoping someone would have a solution that didn't involve carefully selecting sections of a 20Mpixel image. It takes ages to get it right and I wish I had a bigger monitor there just isn't enough room for the picture on my 17 inch screen.Sadly there isn't enough room in the house for a significantly bigger screen. Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce accelleration) to make this easier ? Steve - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the problem > completely. :-) There are two quick ways you can do corrections: > 1) make two scans the same size in Vuescan; one normally, the second with a > slight positive offset of manual focus (about +1 to +1.5). The second scan > will have "corrected" much if not all of the g-a, and the subject will be a > little blurred--but surprisingly little (you might even decide to stay with > that one, unless you're doing large blow-ups). > 2) load the first scan into Photoshop or your favorite image processor. > Select "All" and copy it. Then load the second frame in (it's OK to delete > the first one without saving, since you have a copy). Paste the copy over > the second, blurry copy, and Erase the sky from the top layer down to the > blurred layer. > > If you can get a Selector to work, like the Magic Wand for example to select > just the sky portions (I almost never can--I think the wand is over-rated), > it's even simpler--select the sky only, and have-at-it with any or all of > the blur filters. :-) > > Another way is to use Channels (if they're available in your programs) > either to select and copy a mask, or--as I'd say in this case--to isolate > the redish pixels in the sky and eliminate them. >
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
- Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:13 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > As a preface, when you project the slide much of that grain is masked by the > surface texture of the screen you are projecting on as well as by the > distance you need to use to project to those projection sizes as well as to > view the projected image; but the grain is probably still there just as it > is in the scanned image ( this can be determined by looking at the > transparency under a high powered loupe). When you scan at 4000 dpi, you > are probably both picking up the grain as well as any other noise and > exaggerating it so as to make it more sharply defined and apparent. > So the projection effectively helps mask the grain what a happy coincidence. The point about the distance may be the main reason. In a normal room you switch on the projector (with no slide if you have a relic like me) and suddenly realise that you have dust floating everywhere. Over a longer distance there will be more dust that will effectively randomly filter the smallest details i.e. the grain. I wonder if you used the screen in a chip FAB unit (exceptionally clean environment) whether the grain would be more apparent. > Why are you scanning at an optical 4000 dpi? Could you scan at a lower > optical resolution if necessary? Lower sampling rates lead to higher noise to signal ratios. Whilst resampling down from 4000dpi will reduce noise to signal ratios. I am pretty certain that it is always best to scan at best optical and then resample down if you require a lower resolution. > While for 35mm slides and negatives 4000 > dpi optical resolutions may be good if you are going to engage in extreme > enlargement and/or cropping, they may not be required ( and even be > problematic in the case of some films and images) for prints 8x10 and under. I am hoping to archive the pictures in a form that will allow any one to be selected at random to be output at any size that I may require at that time. Perhaps I'm being a bit over ambitious, but I don't see a lot of point in archiving them digitally if I can still get better prints from the fading original. > I have heard that one sometimes can scan materials that generate the sorts > of problems that you are experiencing at lower resolutions and save them in > Genuine Fractals' lossless mode to a .stn file, which upon opening can be > both resized to almost any size as well as upsampled with the added bonus of > frequently smoothing out the sharpness of the grain presentation being > displayed via its use of fractal and wavelet technologies. I have not tried > it for that purpose (e.g., to smooth out the sharp appearance of grain > structure displays); but if you are having the problem it might be worth a > try. None the less, I would reduce the scan resolutions and see how low you > need to go to eliminate the problem versus the minimum resolution you need > to output the portion of the image that you want at the size you want. > I did try this by resampling a 4000dpi to 2000dpi and 1333dpi and then resizing back (without GF), but you have to reduce the pixel count too much and you are better off blurring the original. GF would have produced marginally better results, but in my experiene GF is slightly better in the 2x-3x range not a miracle worker so I still think a slight blurring would be better. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > > > Today I'm going for the dual prize of most boring picture (see attachment) > and most dumb question ever on the list. > > Mark asked me about a problem in the background of some pictures > http://www.grafphoto.com/grain.html > > The problem is that my sample (a bit of sky) from a slide projects with > perfect continuous tones at any size even 40 inch by 60 inch and it still > looks reasonably sharp (within reason) but yet when I scan it at 4000dpi I > get a grainy effect that will show up in an A3 print and a soft image in > general. The problem often gets worse with sharpening . I have found that a > unsharp mask threshold 9+ usually avoids sharpening the graininess. > Alternatively a gaussian blur removes it but if you do this to the whole > image you end up with an even more soft image but on the plus side you can > sharpen it more aggressively and use a threshold of 3-4 which means much > more gets sharpened. > > Obviously carefully selecting the sky/problem area and blurring that > separately is probably t
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Lynn said " Howcome Polaroid users aren't seeing it? Or are they just not talking about it?" Mines an Artixscan 4000T a (I'm told) SS4000 apart from the box and the software. You've seen my section of sky I don't know if its any better or worse than anyone elses, but it is definitely there. Incidentally I tried something suggested by Lynn (off list) involving A channel of LAB mode. A gaussian blur 1.0 followed by unsharp mask 200%,radius 1, threshold 1 and most of it was gone and the sharpness was retained. Later I will look in to this more and check for flaws and try different blurs and unsharp mask. Steve
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Anything USB will track better because of the higher sampling rate. Unfortunately the MS USB mouse I bought didn't like the KT133 VIA chipset on the motherboard. This is a common problem with Via chipsets see: http://www.usbman.com . When I first installed the motherboard I couldn't use USB at all with my Epson 1270 and the USB mouse & keyboard caused periodic crashes. Eventually I gave up on the mouse and keyboard but I managed to persuade the printer to work. It's not entirely Vias fault though has my Casio camera has had absolute zero problems from day 1. If you have a PS/2 mouse, AT YOUR OWN RISK, you can overclock the sampling rate. Never heard of anyone permanently damaging anything with this procedure but I am sure it can be done (I have tried it before myself). If you did permanently damage the PS/2 port you would have to use a USB or serial port mouse - you have been warned. Steve - Original Message - From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track > much more smoothly.. > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:05 AM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > > > | I'll try this and see how it compares with gaussian blur. I was hoping > | someone would have a solution that didn't involve carefully selecting > | sections of a 20Mpixel image. It takes ages to get it right and I wish I > had > | a bigger monitor there just isn't enough room for the picture on my 17 > inch > | screen.Sadly there isn't enough room in the house for a significantly > bigger > | screen. > | > | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone > | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce > | accelleration) to make this easier ? > | > | Steve > | > | - Original Message - > | From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM > | Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution > ? > | > | > | > The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the problem > | > completely. :-) There are two quick ways you can do corrections: > | > 1) make two scans the same size in Vuescan; one normally, the second > with > | a > | > slight positive offset of manual focus (about +1 to +1.5). The second > scan > | > will have "corrected" much if not all of the g-a, and the subject will > be > | a > | > little blurred--but surprisingly little (you might even decide to stay > | with > | > that one, unless you're doing large blow-ups). > | > 2) load the first scan into Photoshop or your favorite image processor. > | > Select "All" and copy it. Then load the second frame in (it's OK to > delete > | > the first one without saving, since you have a copy). Paste the copy > over > | > the second, blurry copy, and Erase the sky from the top layer down to > the > | > blurred layer. > | > > | > If you can get a Selector to work, like the Magic Wand for example to > | select > | > just the sky portions (I almost never can--I think the wand is > | over-rated), > | > it's even simpler--select the sky only, and have-at-it with any or all > of > | > the blur filters. :-) > | > > | > Another way is to use Channels (if they're available in your programs) > | > either to select and copy a mask, or--as I'd say in this case--to > isolate > | > the redish pixels in the sky and eliminate them. > | > > | > | > | > >
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
> >So the projection effectively helps mask the grain what a happy coincidence > > While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air masking > flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of the > projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing distance independent > of any dust. The further away from the screen you view the image the less > likely you are to see things like grain in that like a Surrat painting your > eyes tend to blend the individual particles of grain into a single > continuous tone structure even though under a loupe or standing up close you > will still see theindividual grains. I thought I had covered this with some sort of statement like "even when viewed quite close-up", but I must have rephrased this and removed it before I posted the message. Anyway I just tried it 40x60 inch projected onto plain white paper. With Velvia (circa 1990) (I used the slide from which the original sample of blue sky was made). I have to get within 16 inches to see it at all and even then it is so faint you might miss it if you weren't looking for it. Even from 3-4 inches it is minor. I then tried some early Fujichrome 400 (circa 1985) and you can see the grain easily from 15 feet on some slides. I can't wait to try scanning some of these! > As for screen texture, most screens > have a pebbled or/and rectilinear surface intended to gather and concentrate > light so as to make them brighter (they are not smooth surfaces without any > texture); this surface texture also tends to break up individual noise and > grain patterns so as to mask the grain structure of what is being projected > unless it is really very graining so as to have the appearance of an old > newspaper 65 line screen halftone. I hadn't considered this and nor did I fetch my screen when I tried the slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work. > >Lower sampling rates lead to higher noise to signal ratios. > > I think there is probably a point at which there is NO PERCEIVABLE decrease > in the signal to noise rations and further increased optical resolutions are > of little practical point except to permit increases in output sizes while > still maintaining a reasonably high quality non-interpolated resolution or > to permit cropping and enlarging of small portions of the original while > maintaining reasonably high quality non-interpolated resolutions. Most > monitors cannot use resolutions over 100 dpi and most printers cannot use > resolutions over 300 dpi. Since the less noise you have the more apparent > the display of grain will be, it may be a good thing to compromise and allow > some noise to be introduced in order to tone down the sharp appearance of > grain structure. To some extent a little noise may help. Indeed some noise is sometimes added deliberately in some signal processing techniques. My sketchy understanding of digital signal processing tells me that you require 2x (a few experts insist 4x is better[just], but for the rest of this post I'm going to use 2x) the final output sampling rate to achieve an almost totally accurate output. Hence CD's sample at 44KHz to achieve accurate sound up to 22KHz. I think the 300dpi used in the best printers comes from the human eye being unable to see more than 150dpi so you need 2x150 or 300dpi to achieve the desired result. So for a 12x18 you need 3600x5400 which is just short of 4000dpi. I have seen Velvia printed well at 20x30 so I believe a scan of at least 6000x9000 (6000dpi) would be better still. In the case of the Fujichrome 400 you are probably right that 4000dpi and possibly 2000dpi is a waste of time. Something to try on a rainy day and there's plenty of them in the UK :-) > > >Whilst resampling down from 4000dpi will reduce noise to signal ratios. > >I am pretty certain that it is always best to scan at best optical and then > >resample down if you require a lower resolution. > > Although resampling down from 4000 dpi may or may not reduce the appearance > of noise but not the actual existence of noise, b it also will result in the > loss of informational data that cannot be gained back later and the possible > production of other troublesome artifacts. The reduction in resolution that > does reduce signal to noise rations is not via the use of resampling but via > the actual reduction in optical resolutions being used from 4000 dpi to some > optical resolution under that if your scanner has an optical resolution of > 4000 dpi. If it has a maximum optical resolution of less than 4000 dpi than > any scan over that is an interpolated scan that has been upsampled by the > scanner software and not an optical resolution, while any scan less than the > maximum optical scan resolution is an optical resolution. Up sampling should generally be avoided if at all possible as it will always lead to some nasty artefacts. I tried it in the hope the artefacts introduced would be less noticeable than the noise re
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
As mentioned in a previous message the projector does display the grain, but there is so little in Velvia that at 40x60 you still have to look hard and get within 16 inches to see it. Some slides like early Fujichrome 400 the grain is obvious from 15 feet. The projector is a relic made entirely of steel and cast iron! It's probably worth many times it's original purchase value. It was quite old when it was given to my Dad. He had it for around 20 years before I appropriated it by stealth, as a poor student, 20 years ago. It was made by Aldis. The lens is an Aldis Star Anastigmat 100mm. I have never thought it was stunning, but it was better than the modern alternatives I have seen. The one thing that did worry me was it runs extremely hot (you can only touch the body for a brief moment before burning). But the slide carrier and the lens are on steel rails that allow you to move the slide about an inch from the body and in this position the slides only get slightly warm and I certainly don't see the slide adjust focus as the film bends in the heat- something that I have seen quite often on modern projectors. Steve PS Can anyone date the projector ? It has a gun metal finish. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 9:55 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? > My experience as well. The lenses Kodak provides for their projectors > are very "forgiving" should we say. > > My Navitar Gold lenses certainly "define" what I'm looking at. > > Art > > John Matturri wrote: > > > > > > Haven't been following this thread all that closely so this may have > > been covered. But what lens are you using for your projections? If it is > > a lens supplied with most projectors the poor quality might be a masking > > factor. The difference between one of these lenses and a Buhl or similar > > projection lens is pretty substantial. > > >
Re: filmscanners: What causes this ... projection
Hi Laurie Part 2 here - part 3 may take some time as I'm quite busy and it's also the area where we have the least common ground. > >I thought I had covered this with some sort of statement like "even when > >viewed quite close-up", but I must have rephrased this and removed it > before > >I posted the message. > > You did in your original message; but everything is relative. Some films > and scenes display the grain more prominently than others as you have noted > and are obvious even at further distances; while others display grain less > prominently even at quite close distances. However, the grain is none the > less still there in all cases. You recent test seems to bear not only this > point out; but the tests from what I can tell given the comparative > information you provided are inconclusive on my point that the screen > texture masks the grain structure more so than a smooth surface under the > same conditions would for the same original. > I said this in the original reply "I hadn't considered this and nor did I fetch my screen when I tried the slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work." I didn't try the screen test as I would probably of woken my son extracting it from his bedroom. I felt that the test onto the paper would also show more clearly what the scanner sees. Once I had seen the grain on the Velvia slide (I had seen it on the Fujichrome 400 years ago) I didn't see a lot of point in trying with the screen. But my feeling is: a textured surface helps mask the grain as the minor dark spots will have lighter spots reflected from the pits to mask the effect. The grain being darker will reflect less so the converse effect will be less pronounced. This will lead to a reduction in randomly distributed darker spots. Could be complete bullsh*t, but it seems fairly logical to me and until I get the screen out and find out otherwise I am pretty confident that you are right about the screen. Steve
Re: filmscanners: What causes this ... projection
Whoops - sorry that was meant to be off-list has Laurie and I have already bored you all tears with this one. Steve - Original Message - From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:50 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this ... projection > Hi Laurie > > Part 2 here - part 3 may take some time as I'm quite busy and it's also the > area where we have the least common ground. > > > >I thought I had covered this with some sort of statement like "even when > > >viewed quite close-up", but I must have rephrased this and removed it > > before > > >I posted the message. > > > > You did in your original message; but everything is relative. Some films > > and scenes display the grain more prominently than others as you have > noted > > and are obvious even at further distances; while others display grain less > > prominently even at quite close distances. However, the grain is none the > > less still there in all cases. You recent test seems to bear not only > this > > point out; but the tests from what I can tell given the comparative > > information you provided are inconclusive on my point that the screen > > texture masks the grain structure more so than a smooth surface under the > > same conditions would for the same original. > > > I said this in the original reply "I hadn't considered this and nor did I > fetch my screen when I tried the > slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work." > > I didn't try the screen test as I would probably of woken my son extracting > it from his bedroom. I felt that the test onto the paper would also show > more clearly what the scanner sees. > > Once I had seen the grain on the Velvia slide (I had seen it on the > Fujichrome 400 years ago) I didn't see a lot of point in trying with the > screen. > > But my feeling is: a textured surface helps mask the grain as the minor dark > spots will have lighter spots reflected from the pits to mask the effect. > The grain being darker will reflect less so the converse effect will be less > pronounced. This will lead to a reduction in randomly distributed darker > spots. > > Could be complete bullsh*t, but it seems fairly logical to me and until I > get the screen out and find out otherwise I am pretty confident that you are > right about the screen. > > Steve > > >
Re: filmscanners: What causes this ... projection
> >I felt that the test onto the paper would also show > >more clearly what the scanner sees. > > I am afraid that I do not see the logic of this. I do not see how the > projection of a slide onto smooth paper would simulate a scan; I can see the > point of comparing the projection onto smooth paper versus the projection > onto a projection screen. I think you may be making a number of unwarranted > assumptions. There may be unwarranted assumptions but it was never meant to be a scientific experiment- hence I "felt". The reason I suspect the paper is more representative of the scannner is: 1) All screens are made this way and I would have thought it would be cheaper to manufacturer it flat. Manufacturers obviously texture the surface to improve the image. Whereas the scanner is just reporting what it sees. 2) The scanner looks at a flat surface (if you scan the right surface) so I just felt that viewing the output on a flat surface would be more representative. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
> 5. The assertion that 'filmscanning is it' will deter many > potential converts to quasi-digital photography. Many people > will never get stuck into filmscanning as we enthusiasts > have done, because of the cost and the blood, sweat & tears > involved. They could revolutionise their photography quite > easily by using a cheap flatbed scanner on their prints. > Some of them *just might* become converts to filmscanning. > I did this for 9 months, with great satisfaction, before > buying my first filmscanner.) These folk need *gentle* > encouragement to join us, and develop & preserve the > filmscanner market. If we're not careful, mass market > filmscanning will wither in parallel to silver photography > as all-digital systems develop. > > Digital cameras have much further to go than we have. We > know that, but the marketeers don't. I am not so sure digital cameras are that far behind. See this : http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-05/2001_05_17_dcs_760.html and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M) http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/dcs760_bw_portrait.jpg There may only be just over a 30% of the pixels in a 4000dpi scan from 35mm, but the "cleaner" digital image largely makes up for the lack of pixels. Ok it will be approx US $7000 but hopefully the consumer stuff will eventually follow on. Consumer versions are not a foregone conclusion, as we know, the film industry brought us 110 and APS. Supposedly no worse for general use and much more convenient. Most of the convenience and feature advantages have been added to 35mm cameras and processing now anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to find the arguement that 3Mp is good enough for A4 so we won't bother with consumer cameras beyond 3Mp. It has already been 14/15 months since I bought my 3Mp camera and I don't know of anything significantly better on the horizon. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Any insight on H.P. vs Epson printers
If you use the HP for plain paper text as well as photos I'd stick with the HP as IMHO it does this much better. In my experience I have found Epson photographic type output on specialist papers is slightly better, but I have not seen the same image printed on both printers by a competent operator. One advantage with Epson is the jets are not part of the ink cartridge which I understand leads to more consistant results from one cartridge to the next. I have no idea how significant the difference is but it also means clogging can be fatal. See other reasons below from Art. You can go to a shop and get a test print, but there are all sorts of operator, media and software issues that may influence the result. Your best bet is a friend with an Epson who knows how to use it. That way you can hopefully compare the best possible results from each printer. Steve - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:34 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Any insight on H.P. vs Epson printers > I don't have either printer. I do have sample prints from the 1270. > > There are more issues than image quality. In fact, more and more the > qualitative differences between basic print output is not "the issue" > with inkjet printers, because, very simply, they are getting very close > to one another in output quality. > > The issues are more complex, and you can't use a loupe to see most of them. > > How fast does the printer work? Does output take 10 minutes or one minute? > > What type of paper can the printer use, (surfaces, weight, etc) and how > do the inks respond to different paper types? > > How much do papers cost, if the printer requires a special paper made by > a specific manufacturer? > > What is the maximum print size, versus paper size that can be used? > > How long do the images last before fading, and under what conditions? > Is fading fairly uniform or tend to emphasize one color more then others? > > How much does the ink cost per print? What is the usable life of the > ink carts, once opened? > > Is there more than one type of ink available for the printer? Will the > inks types available fulfill the needs I have in mind? > > Are the cartridges refillable, or are ink cartridges available by other > than the manufacturer? (what would happen if the company went under, > decided to stop producing the ink carts, or simply made the carts overly > expensive?) > > Can individual ink colors carts be replaced, rather than having to toss > a cartridge due to one color running out? > > How durable is the printer? Is the ink head permanent or replaceable? > Will the head be more apt to clog in the type of climate I will be using > the printer in? > > What is the warranty like? How long is it, what's covered, is shipping > included, will they cross ship? > > Years ago, print quality was a, if not THE major issue in deciding which > printer family to buy. With the current quality being offered in that > department, other issues become the deciding factors. > > Art > > Dan Kimble wrote: > > > I am looking to buy another printer. I currently have an HP970cxi which > > has PhotoREt III technology (HP's latest three color + black) and I > > think it prints great. I have not seen a side by side comparison of the > > HP's vs the Epson's. I have heard a lot of talk about the Epson 1270 on > > this list, but has any one done a fair comparison?? > > > > Any help would be appreciated. > > > > Dan > > >
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request
> Good point, Alan. Both Norton and McAfee (the only two I've used)seem to go > a bit overboard on backups, sometimes to the point of obstructing and > shutting down the whole operation, particularly on a system with marginal > RAM. > > Any tips you have on defeating this "overzealousness" would be more than > welcome by me, and possibly others. > Don't use the damn things! My brother had Norton on his machine. It takes twice as long to boot and seemed to be one of the most unstable machines I have ever used. I once installed some software and it took 3 hours to make all it's backups. I can reinstall windows and most of the applications I use regularly in less time. After a clean install the system is generally noticably fastet too. What's the point - particularly if they can even mess up and get in the way of the installation of something as unobtrusive as Vuescan? I suspect the backup will be no different to the previous installation backup as Vuescan does not intrude in any system directories, files and in particular does not use the registry. Steve
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem
I don't know if you have already dealt with this problem, but ... There is a Win 98/98SE problem where the disk caching locks up the system if you have more than 512MB of physical RAM. There's an article in the Microsoft Knowledge database somewhere. Their workarounds are if memory serves correct: 1) Use msconfig to set the machines maximum memory to 512MB in Windows. Quite a dumb solution if you ask me. 2) FIRST MAKE A BACKUP COPY OF "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI" file then Edit C:\windows\system.ini and set a maximum file cache to less than 512MB - I'd suggest something around the size of 16bit 4000dpi filescan which is approx 108MB. So in the file "system.ini" look for the section marked [vcache] add the following line for 108MB : MaxFileCache=110592 This will leave your system.ini file looking like this: [vcache] MaxFileCache=110592 The value after "MaxFileCache=" is 1024*n (where n is the number of MB you wish to use as cache). Regards Steve P.S. Anyone running with limited memory (less than approx 3x scan_size) you may wish to try setting MaxFileCache to quite a low value (16384 or 8192, perhaps). This will leave more memory to your photo-editting application which may help it to run more smoothly, unfortuantely it will also slow reading and saving large files. It depends what you find most inconvenient. Right now I'd say memory is cheap (IMHO) and if your machine can take it, and you have the money, buy some more. - Original Message - From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:03 PM Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem > I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000. It's a wonderful scanner, especially when used with Vuescan. > > However... I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM Whenever I reboot my system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs about halfway into the Windows boot. If I unplug the FW cable it boots properly. It smells to me like an interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I installed Nikon's upgraded driver from the CD). I tried taking out the SCSI card that was running my Polaroid to see if there was a conflict, but it didn't help. > > Has anyone else had this problem? Any trouble-shooting ideas? Should I consider upgrading to Win2K? > > Paul Chefurka >
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 (/ Nikon 4000 / Artixscan 4000)
> I wish some of these people who I hypothesize are moving from > Polaroid to Nikon would put some side-by-side evaluations of their > machines on the web before selling the Polaroid - I'd like to see > how the edge sharpnesses compare and how discernable the color > differences are. > > Bill Ross > I would like to know too and as such would love the opportunity to try a Nikon 4000 against my Artixscan 4000. Does anyone know of a retailer in SE England that will demo a Nikon 4000 or alternatively is there anyone in the SE of England who has one - I could visit with slides, negs , blank CD-R , wine/beer to give it a try. I'll put the results on a website for all to see. Steve
