[filmscanners] RE: Dynamic range/ Roy's first post to the max-noise list, LONG
I thought to post this yesterday, but decided not to because much of it is redundant to what has been discussed here lately, and it is long. However, I've decided to post it now because Roy cites some DyR definitions from audio that I think will help us move away from the fixation of bits that seems to inexorably dominate when discussing scanners, even though we all agree they are only a function of the digitization of a DyR. (I find it fascinating how much we all agree on this then find a way to discuss it again and again as though each time it were it were fresh and illuminating. I'm convinced that NOT discussing bits is the key to moving this conversation forward). One last thing, we are all getting frustrated by the redundancy, but I'm not convinced it's time to give up just yet. So, I'd like to advocate that those of us who do choose to continue, try to keep it cool and cordial. If anyone finds Roy's tone provocative at any point please remember this was written in another place and time. This was Roy's first post to the max-noise list: on 7/4/02 1:57 PM, Roy Harrington wrote: Greetings All! Since some of you may not know who I am, let's just say I am a concerned participant in the issue of Dynamic Range. To date I've witnessed three separate large discussion/ arguments about it with many hundreds of posts. I was out of town for the latest one in the filmscanners group. I was an active participant in the previous one in the digital BW yahoo group and saw the tail end of one in the piezo BW yahoo group. In all three cases the argument finally died leaving the participants totally frustrated and most of the other group members very alienated. None of the discussions resulted in an agreed upon resolution. In this writing, my desire is to attempt to resolve this issue and forego future non-productive arguments. I'm determined not to get into battle of Yes it is -- No its not. This may be a difficult task but I feel compelled to at least try. So here goes nothing :) What I notice most about much of the discussion in the incessant wandering of what the heck we're talking or arguing about. Its all based on Dynamic Range but whether its audio, video, scanners, imaging, signal processing, volt meters, etc. keeps the discussion from focusing on anything in particular. I'd like to start off with a very specific reference and situation. The reference that was introduced by Austin and referenced repeatedly is Higgins book Digital Signal Processing in VLSI. I think everyone is comfortable with this text and agrees with what is stated in it. The section of interest is: 1.4.1 Dynamic Range Example: Analog Vs Digital Audio (I.e. this is mainly written with audio in mind and I'd like to stay fixed in that context for now. The both analog digital are intertwined here but we can concentrate on the analog). The equation of interest is: DynamicRange (db) = 20*log10 (largest/smallest discernible signal) with signals expressed in voltage or current. there's a footnote: decibel is defined as 10*log10(power ratio) power versus voltage accounts for the extra power of 2. The picture he shows is labeled as an analog vinyl record groove: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg Austin's Statement Here's Austin's statement about the text and diagram: Austin wrote: Reference this diagram: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg largest is shown on this diagram to be the maximum signal level minus the minimum signal level, and is the largest range or absolute range that the signal can go from = to. Example, maximum signal level is 5, minimum signal level is 2, the absolute range/largest range is (5 - 2) or 3. smallest is shown as the noise. It is the same thing as smallest discernable signal, which means the smallest change that can be detected. Where the signal is at it's lowest point, is what I am calling minimum signal level. Where the signal is at it's highest point, is what I am calling maximum signal level. The dynamic range equation is, using these terms, and the provided diagram, can be either of the following: DR (dB) = 10log10 (largest/smallest) DR (dB) = 10log10 ((maximum signal level - minimum signal level) / smallest) You can substitute smallest DISCERNABLE signal for smallest in these equations. Do NOT confuse smallest/smallest discernable signal with minimum signal level, they are not the same thing, though in some circumstances they MAY have the same value. First of all I'd like to commend Austin for his explicit statement of this interpretation of the Higgins text. Its too bad that Higgins wasn't as explicit about what he meant when he wrote the book. As the scan of the diagram shows, the labeling of the diagram is fairly spare. I'm quite sure that this is NOT the interpretation that Higgins had in mind while writing the book. I'd like to be equally explicit about
[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range
Austin wrote: Reference this diagram: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg largest is shown on this diagram to be the maximum signal level minus the minimum signal level, and is the largest range or absolute range that the signal can go from = to. Example, maximum signal level is 5, minimum signal level is 2, the absolute range/largest range is (5 - 2) or 3. Hi Austin, Above is the part of your explanation I don't have the background to understand. What type of signal will have a max signal level of 5 and a min signal level of 2? I understand that some signals may be +/-3v, or something like that, but are there really signals that are +5-2? If we are feeding a range of signal levels through a device to determine the device's DyR, isn't it done in a way that starts with a signal of zero, or so close to zero as to surely be below the noise of the device? Then progressively stronger signals are fed till we can determine what signal strength becomes just distinguishable from noise, which tells us the devices MDS? Then progressively stronger signals till we see at what point the signal is no longer distinguishable from clipping/distortion? Isn't this point of clipping/distortion what the Analog Devices white paper uses for it's Peak Level? See again, sec 3.1 fig 5. They show peak level as a point, not a range: http://www.analog.com/library/whitepapers/dsp/32bit_wa.html#3 So by feeding a range of signal levels we determine the TWO values we need for our short-form DyR equation, max and min: max/min, or max - min? I'm having trouble to imagine the scenario where one has a device that produces a Largest/Peak Level/Dmin of 5-2, but I accept that is due to my lack of understanding. Please explain. This gets to my comparison of the Higgins diagram to fig 5, which you dismissed because One diagram is in log (the paper), and one is in non-log (Higgins). You can not compare the two. I take issue with that, those are mathematical differences, but I'm discussing this conceptually and via the terms of the definition, and how the diagrams illustrate those terms. Todd smallest is shown as the noise. It is the same thing as smallest discernable signal, which means the smallest change that can be detected. Where the signal is at it's lowest point, is what I am calling minimum signal level. Where the signal is at it's highest point, is what I am calling maximum signal level. The dynamic range equation is, using these terms, and the provided diagram, can be either of the following: DR (dB) = 10log10 (largest/smallest) DR (dB) = 10log10 ((maximum signal level - minimum signal level) / smallest) You can substitute smallest DISCERNABLE signal for smallest in these equations. Do NOT confuse smallest/smallest discernable signal with minimum signal level, they are not the same thing, though in some circumstances they MAY have the same value. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range
Julian This sounds like an amazingly lucid explanation. Thanks for clarifying that. I know I've looked at a lot of audio references and have yet to see a density range specification within them. Electrical components just don't seem to have density ranges, they have dynamic ranges, which is a description of the range of power levels they can reproduce cleanly. Things that block or reflect light have density ranges, and a scanner's DyR is a quantification of the density range it can READ, but electronics in and of themselves just don't have density ranges. Is it fair to say that any item that LITERALLY has a density range can not LITERALLY have a dynamic range, and vice versa? I'd think so! I'd think an item could have a density range and a resolution, or a dynamic range and a resolution, but it can't have a dynamic range and a density range and a resolution... Todd At 14:53 30/08/02, David wrote: Does that mean you claim that density range and dynamic range are equivalent measurements of the same physical quantity? Well yes and no. Density range is normally a property of a slide or piece of film, or an image on a film. Dynamic range is normally a property of some processing device, like a scanner in this case. If you have a slide that can just be scanned by a scanner without the scanner saturating or getting the black bits lost in the noise, then the slide's density range is the same as the scanner dynamic range, in that case. A scanner doesn't have a density range, but it has a range of densities that it can handle. The maximum range of densities that it can handle in a single pass is its dynamic range. The maximum range of densities that it can handle under any circumstances is it's static range, or max range, sometimes called just Dmax by manufacturers. (Inaccurately, but we think we know what they mean. Dmax is not a range, it is a figure. When they say this, they are by implication assuming an upper limit of 0dB as the other end of the range). So if a slide's density range is greater than the scanner dynamic range then the scanner cannot capture the whole density range of the slide. I am using the terms as they are normally used. Both are measures of range of densities. One is the range of densities actually or potentially on a slide, one is the range of densities that a scanner can handle. You *can* talk about the dynamic range of a particular slide and be kind of correct. Or you could talk about the dynamic range of the medium (that is, the particular film). Dynamic range is, as it always has been, nothing more than the range of largest signal to smallest signal, usually expressed as a ratio. On an actual slide it is easy enough to pick the largest signal (the lightest density) and the smallest signal (the densest area which is just discernable against unexposed film background). For the medium, the relevant figures are the lowest POSSIBLE density, and the highest POSSIBLE density that can still be discerned from background black. If you use the language this way, then the slide's dynamic range is the same thing as its density range. Julian Julian Robinson Canberra, Australia http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range
on 8/29/02 5:26 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote: but do you realize that the range that Austin is using as his Dmin for the ISO formula is the ENTIRE density range of the scanner? Austin's explained this: in any dynamic range calculation, the maximum signal level can be seen as corresponding to the range of levels handled, assuming the minimum level is defined. The noise (or minimum recognizable signal level) (and the maximum signal level) defines how many meaningful steps the maximum signal level is from the minimum signal level. That's all dynamic range is: the number of meaningful steps from min to max. That's normally expressed as a ratio... Yes, I suppose if one is convinced that DYR is a resolution that is the way they'd have to approach it as such, but David, tell me, have you seen a cited reference that supports that approach? I've wanted to believe Austin is right for a long time, but there is just massive evidence against it. Do you really see the ISO's: (Dmax - Dmin) supporting that, or Analog Devices: (Peak Level) - (Noise Floor) supporting that? Isn't it more obvious to presume that Dmin is a single value, as is Peak Level, and if they WERE a range extra attention would be paid to that issue by the definitions? Would they really leave it vague for most EEs to be mistaken? What Julian said about the term Dynamic Range makes sense: if it's not really a range, wouldn't the definitions go out of their way to have it be known it is a resolution, a resolution which is called a range, and as such all max signal levels need to be understood as being relative to min signal levels before they can be applied in the equation? Shouldn't they hint somehow that while the equation they lay out may look like x/z, or x-z, what it will look like in use will be (x-y)/z or (x-y)-z? In time wouldn't the confusion of students of the subject demand they pay attention to this possible source of massive confusion (and upset ;-)) ??? My point is that a value reported by a scanner corresponds to a range of possible values in the film, and that the size of that range is given by the worse of the noise in the electronics or the bit resolution of the scanner. I think we all share that point. Todd PS, I like the way your mail program quotes me, what do you use? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range
To David and Austin Austin replies to me: Let me repeat, this paper says DyR is: if noise is present, the difference between the loudest (maximum level) signal to the noise floor. This is in contrast to Austin who says DyR is: (maximum signal level - minimum signal level) / noise) They are exactly the same equations, as I've shown countless times...one is in log and one is non-log. Subtraction using log numbers is EXACTLY the same as division using non-log numbers. Look, I'm not mathematically minded, and I do sometimes confuse what types of values are expressed in log form and which aren't. So I can't always be trusted to use the DyR equation in it's proper form, i.e., max - min vs max/min. But look at those slips as typos and don't assume it means I don't appreciate that when used properly both mean the same thing. I am confused in usage and execution, not concept. So, in summary, I believe this paper shows that dynamic range is a range, the range between the noise floor and clipping - which is in opposition to Austin's premise that DyR is a resolution. Come on, Todd, the paper CLEARLY says dynamic range is a resolution. Why on earth do they say so many times that you need so many bits to represent a particular dynamic range? Forget the diagrams, you are confused by them, as they clearly represent two different things. I think Roy and Julian have answered this better than I could. I would just say that to really get at this I think it needs to be looked at from an analog perspective, so we do not let the relationship which exists between bits and DyR in the digital world confuse us as to what DyR IS. The bits are merely carriers of DyR, they are not what DyR is. I know you and David know this, but you say thinks like above which confuse the issue. Here's another obscure example to demonstrate my point that will make the purists puke... but lets just try it. Say we have a vessel of freshly squeezed milk. Let's pretend there are some curds or solids in the milk which have settled to the bottom. Let's call them noise. And there is some creme which has risen to the top. Lets call that saturation or clipping. I'm going to say the aspect of the milk I am interested in is the skim milk between. That volume of milk is my Dynamic Volume. For every similar vessel I have of fresh squeezed milk, the quantity of Dynamic Milk within that vessel may be different, depending on the relative amounts of noise and clipping that accompanies it. So, lets say I have one particular 250 oz vessel which has 1 oz of noise (solids) and 49 oz of clipping (creme). That leaves me with 200 oz of Dynamic Volume in that Vessel. Whether you want to express that volume as a difference or a ratio doesn't really interest me. Now if I have 20 calves that each need to be bottle fed 10 oz of milk, I know I need 20 10oz bottles to carry my Dynamic Volume of milk. However, the Dynamic Volume from that vessel has not now become 20 bottles, it is still 200oz. Okay, enough of my nonsense. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range
on 8/27/02 9:26 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The notion that Dynamic Range is not based on the actual values the data represents is so ludicrous that I'm just going to have to bow out of this fruitless endeavor. I had hopes that you might be able to get it but ... I think we need to retreat to basics: Density range: the range of densities the scanner can recognize. Dynamic range: How finely the scanner chops up (resolves) the density range. Which means that dynamic range has very little to do with the physical quantities the values represent. (More accurately, the meaning of the individual values are determined by the meanings of the endpoints and how finely the actual range is chopped up, but it is the density range that determines the meaning of the endpoints.) Please help me understand this. I thought what determined the DyR of a scanner was its ability to accurately read into dense film. IOW, to discern low voltages (readings through high density film) from noise. IOW, how far from clear film into density it can distinguish -- not how finely the image gets chopped. I understand that if you don't have enough chops (bits) your scanner will run out of encoding room, so to speak, and won't be able to continue assigning values to the sequentially lower voltages. Thus insufficient bit depth can LIMIT DyR. But this is just incidental to how scanners work, not what DyR is. Thus, simply adding more bits to a noisy scanner may do nothing to increase DyR. Therefore, isn't a scanner's DyR in fact a function of being able to discern shadow detail above noise? IOW, the distance it can record from one endpoint (clear film base) to the other (film dMax)? If you designed a scanner that could only handle film with a DyR of 2.2, but it could do so by spreading that density across 16-bits, would it have a higher DyR than a scanner that uses 14-bits to accurately record film with a DyR of 3.9? I think not, not by any conventional use I've seen of the term DyR. If I'm correct, here is an analogy. We have two rulers, one a 12 marked in 1/16 increments, the other 24 marked in 1/4 increments. If we understand DyR to be the ability to measure further from one endpoint to another, the longer ruler has the capacity to record the greater DyR (24), not the one with the greater resolution (12). Todd Flashner Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
on 8/9/02 10:29 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: You will notice, it is exactly as I have described it, a RANGE. I do not see ANYWHERE where it says dynamic range is a range. It shows the RESULT of a calculation WITHIN A RANGE (Dmax), divided by the noise (Dmin), but the result is NOT a range. Austin, First off (Dmin) I was hoping to see how you'd respond to Julian's point that MDS is not always defined by noise. Your eq is based upon noise, but all definitions reference min disc signal. Where are you when the min disc signal is not defined by noise? A VERY simplified example that I've used time and time again while contradicting what you have been saying, but you seem to fail to grasp: A RANGE of 0-5V (which could be stated as a range of 5V) with 1V noise has a dynamic range of (5-0)/1 or 5. A RANGE of 0-5V with 1/2V noise has a dynamic range of (5-0)/1/2 or 10. Note, the RANGE is identical, but the DYNAMIC RANGE is not. I don't get how you can have a range of 5-0 when noise is 1. How do you get a range below noise? Doesn't noise limit your range on the low end, ie define your MDS, just as saturation/clipping does on the high end? Seems to me in your examples above you'd have two choices for each scenario: A RANGE of 0-5V (which could be stated as a range of 5V) with 1V noise This could be ISO = DR = Dmax - Dmin = 5 - 1 = 4, which I *think* is how Julian would approach it. or Austin = DR = range/noise = (5 - 1)/1 = 4 which would appear to account for noise twice, though when noise is assigned a value of 1 it doesn't affect the final DR value (while conceptually it's way different). A RANGE of 0-5V with 1/2V noise This could be ISO DR = Dmax - Dmin = 5 - .5 = 4.5 or, Austin DR =(5 - .5)/.5 = 9 Obviously, I must be mistaken about my assumption of noise and MDS... But the greater surprise is your definition of Dmax as a range. For your interpretation to make sense, your Dmax would need to be the entirety of what Julian considers to be dynamic range. For instance, if you were determining the the DR of a frame of film, isn't Dmax just the max density of the film? By your definition Dmax would be the entire density range of the film? So is DR effectively = density range / noise? If it were that it would be pretty easy to say so. Never seen it in any of the sources cited. The problem is that where sources are cited as definitions, those same sources don't also show numbers applied in the formula, so we can't see who's approach they support. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000EDandotherissues
Bob I have a lot of respect for the knowledge of Austin and Art but I recommend you do read the references from Brian, which support my experience. Cold light heads have gotten a lot of hype over time because people like Ansel Adams spoke highly of them. The Howard bond articles explains nicely how Ansel may have come upon his conclusions. My own experience (as a custom printer) was that the two light sources do have a contrast difference, but by matching the proper neg to the light source will give you the best print, but no light source is capable of giving a better print than the other, in and of, itself. That the two gave different contrast was useful in the old days, before variable contrast papers were around, or any good, such that if you were having a hard time getting a neg to fall right on either of two grades of paper, switching light sources could sometimes split the difference to good effect. I had bought a cold light hoping to improve my condenser prints--It didn't work. In the end I preferred to print the brunt of my stuff with the condenser head for ease of use, which in my case meant ease of switching variable contrast filters, and the ability to change between bulb wattages, allowing me to more easily print at a prime lens apertures, at comfortable exposure times, regardless of negative density. Others may have ease of use issues which would favor the cold light. But ease of use is different than better prints. What I saw in my travels was most fine art darkroom workers used coldlight heads (Ansel wannabies?) while most commercial labs (including those specializing in exhibition printing, like the one I worked at) used condensers, even though we had coldlights on hand. Just keep in mind that a reasonably large percentage of fine art work *is* printed by labs. All I can say is go to galleries and museums, look at the great prints and ask yourself if you can tell which were made by each light source. If you ever have the opportunity to check your guess, like by speaking to the artist at an opening, I'll bet you'd be wrong as often as right, because there just is is no qualitative difference. Quantitative yes, qualitative, no. It's like saying which hammer is better, a 16oz or a 12oz? Well, it depends on the size of the nail you're trying to drive, the size of your hand, your nailing experience, the type of wood you're going into... MHO BTW, I'm also not getting into this to start a war, just trying to save you a few bucks. Just get one light source, get good with it, and use it up. Plus, since you're on this list, you'll probably be digitally printing before long anyway. Todd Art, I'm sorry if my reference to someone like Art has upset you; it was not intended to do so - quite the opposite in fact, as it was really a compliment to your experience and knowledge. I said it to Brian to contrast my relative inexperience in serious photography with people like you and Brian who obviously have far more experience than I do. But one of the main things you learn in becoming a scientist is to question everything. That is not to say that I think that you are wrong in your statements about the relative merits of diffuse and collimated light sources in scanners - you may well be right (and Austin says you are), but I want to know why it works the way you both say it does. So I will read and re-read your comments, and those of Austin and Brian, and follow up Brian's references (and any that you may have that throws further light - collimated of course - on the subject). Respectfully yours, Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, so I've become the someone like reference now, eh? Fine. If you think my intent here is to mislead or just give uneducated opinions with no forethought or research, just ignore them. I have found that the vast majority of people who have followed my advice in regard to scanner decisions have been expressed to me that they were better off for it, but I can't provide you with scientific evidence of that, sorry. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues
on 6/29/02 6:08 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: Hi Todd, but no light source is capable of giving a better print than the other, in and of, itself. Except for that darned Callier effect...which makes point light sources more susceptible to depth of focus, as well as dust, scratches etc. Austin, Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same neg printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've done is taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed it with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH. Likewise if they print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a coldlight it will look flat. Those fools could claim coldlight is bad, as in prints too flat, because it does not produce the Callier effect. The point is, the Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be compensated for as needed. That there exists a phenomenon does not make it bad. Dust and scratches I will concede, but it's not like one has them and the other doesn't - diffuse light merely mitigates them somewhat. Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. For instance, what someone found in one of those darkroom mags (I think it was Ctein) was that the multicontrast papers has a depth of focus issue (maybe that is the wrong term for what I will describe) whereby the papers at certain grades needed the light to be focused at different depths than others. So at one given grade the light which was focused through the grain magnifier was correct for the paper, but other grades would want it focused further or closer. Fine, but how many people did that make a difference for? Few. I happened to print a lot of grainy 35mm film at 16x20. That size reveals a lot of sharpness/focusing flaws. What I found to be the greatest problem for my print's sharpness were: A) film flatness, for which I often resorted to glass carriers, B) paper buckling in the easel, for which I used repositionable spray mount on the easel, C) lens quality, I'm a fan of APO Rodagons and larger than recommended focal lengths (ie a 63 or 75mm lens for 35mm) D) lens aperture, E) enlarger shake, F) user error... and on. My point is, while that list is in no particular order (though A and B were the worst offenders) Callier effect, and multicontrast paper, are below any on that list in importance. Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scansonLS4000EDandotherissues
on 6/29/02 10:51 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: the Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be compensated for as needed. What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust? How do you compensate for that? Well for me, dust and scratches fall under the ease of use factor as opposed to quality of print. If they are a great bane of one's existence than they should see if a diffuse source makes a big difference for them. For me it didn't. They are compensated for by cleaning negs and spotting prints. Depth of focus is compensated for by your lens aperture, which as I already explained you have greater control over with a condenser enlarger, with it's ability to change bulb wattages, than a coldlight. Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an issue or not ;-) I really don't see this a function of the Callier effect, though I'm more than open to being educated on that. As with most focus issues I see it as a function of the lens/aperture relative to the distance/curvature of the film and/or the distance/curvature of the enlarging paper. These relationships exist equally for both diffusion and collimated light sources. The focus issue with the Nikon scanners, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with the Callier effect, it's that the lens aperture is too wide. That is a function of the brightness of the light, not whether it is collimated or diffuse. But again, light intensity and lens aperture are imminently controllable with a condenser enlarger, not so with the Nikon, so it does not share that quality with the scanner. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans on LS4000 EDandotherissues
Hi Austin, That's absolutely NOT true. You do NOT get softer images with less contrast from a diffuse (typically called cold) light source. There has always been a controversy about the merits of cold-lights. Careful tests have proven that exactly the same tonal rendition can be attained with either a cold-light or a conventional condenser when the contrasts of the film/paper are adjusted to match. I happen to agree with this. snip Personally, I believe cold light heads give better tonality for BW chemical darkroom printing, having spend some 25+ years printing fine art BW prints... Here's where you loose me. This seems to contradict the above. If one has no better tonal rendition over over the other why prefer the tonality of the cold light? Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
on 6/12/02 9:33 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: Which is true...as he says as seen by the scanner...and, some people take that to mean that slide film has more dynamic range, but the slide film in fact has less dynamic range than negative film, though slide film does have a higher density range. Could you elaborate on that? Since slide film has the greater density range than neg film, by your definition the only way it would have a lower dynamic range would be if it's noise were higher. What would constitute that noise? What has you say slide film has more noise than neg? Neg film has a flatter response curve than slide film, thus less contrast, and thus, the ability to contain a greater scenic luminosity range, but does low contrast in and of itself mean higher dynamic range? Taken to the extreme, low contrast holds few tones - the opposite of DR. So please explain what you base your assertion on. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
Slides and negatives have only density ranges inherently, not dynamic ranges. So you claim film has no inherent noise, in and of it self, unless you are viewing it? Does the noise of music recorded on a CD not exist until it isn't being played? I think you're being really obscure here... Austin I'm not taking sides here 'cause I really don't know the answer, but considering Anthony's premise... Won't the Dynamic Range of a piece of exposed film vary depending on the strength, and perhaps quality, of light shone through it? The callier effect comes to mind...Similarly, won't the dynamic range of an audio system be different at different volumes? I would imagine at low volume the bass of the system would be low relative to the rest of the scale (why loudness controls were invented), and surely at max volume clipping and distortion would increase noise and lower the DyR. So, while I don't know whether these things conceptually have a DyR while turned off, it does seem plausible that whatever their DyR is, it's relative to how they are viewed and played. Would that make it a dynamic dynamic range??? ;-) Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] FW: Scene brightness and CCDs
Oops, forgot the link, FWIW... http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/S2Pro-020602/index.htm -- From: Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 04:25:08 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Scene brightness and CCDs The number of stops of brightness that film can hold has been discussed of late, but what about CCDs? What kind of luminance range have we the right to expect from the better digicams? For a basis of discussion, look at this link, which at the bottom shows a shows a shot of a boy backlit by sun, as taken buy the 3 new cameras that are capturing a lot of attention and speculation of late. It's pretty typical snapshot material, yet none of these cameras can handle it without the highlights on his skin burning out. Surely this is only the range of contrasty slide film, at best. I realize digicams might be off topic for this list, but these are supposedly the products that will be putting our filmscanners to rest. Will legions of photos with blown out highlights be the legacy of the new technology, or will everyone need to become knowledgeable shooters - utilizing fill flash, or carrying pocket reflectors - to retain detail in the most mundane of pictures? Okay, these are provocative questions... let me not get in a rant... but seriously, how will these devices compare to our beloved films? It's clear they can't handle the luminance that neg films can...not by a long shot...but can they even match the worst of transparencies? Are these blown highlights the result of poor processing algorithms, or are they lost to the RAW files as well??? Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: filmscanners: Pattern with Minolta Scan Multi
Thanks Robert, Long time since I've been right about anything. ;-) Todd Todd, --- Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 11/24/01 1:26 PM, Robert Meier wrote: Well, it seems everybody agrees that these are Newton Rings. Well, I'll be the outsider and say I don't think those are Newton Rings. ;-) Second, I'd like to know if the glass is or is not anti-Newton glass. To my eye it looks more like the subtle texture of anti-Newton glass being revealed in the scan. It's a long time you replied to my message. Anyways, just wanted to tell you that I believe you are right (and everybody else wrong...:o) The texture really seems to come from the glass itself. No Newton Rings. You must have quite some experience... Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for your response. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tiresome Arguments Ad Infinitum
I mostly lurk on this list, but I've read many of these ad nauseum threads here and elsewhere to know what you speak of, and I disagree. Why so many lists want to rehash the same old newbie questions over and over I'll never understand. On this list the repetitive mundane might be about dust, or which med format scanner is best. On the printer lists it's about clog busting. As if we need any more posts on clogs! Talk about mind numbing and repetitive task tiresome on the delete key!!! Just when did esoterica become so vulgar in this society? Are we only sound bite able now? If something can't be agreed upon quickly it's wasted time? Is AGREEMENT better than truth, understanding, and knowledge? Is pleasantry more important than substance? Questions, questions, so many questions... On another list, in a thread similar to this one, (fed up with the esoterica), the complainer facetiously suggested someone start a list called The Noise, where all these less-than-everyday-useful discussions can air freely, (and I would add, without the well intentioned but curmudgeonly hatchet of impatience coming down upon it). Unfortunately I'm self admittedly too slothful and unambitious to start it, promote it, and monitor it, but I say it is an idea who's time has come! If nothing else, it'd provide a place to go when people request a discussion be taken elsewhere. If any of you argumentative types are interested in pursuing intelligent and passionate conversations about the some of the less common and relevant aspects of imaging, I say go for it! and sign me up. Todd Flashner It's amazing -- and sad -- just how often a few of those on this list seem driven to engage in hair-splitting arguments about anything not seen quite their way by another. I've no idea of their chronological ages, but the level of their debate is way up there at about what you'd expect from seventh graders. I've learned a good bit from this list, and am grateful for that. But the tone of the discourse is w-a-a-a-a-y too often just petty bickering by a few who take themselves much too seriously. True, my delete key still works, but it's no longer worth it to me to plow through dozens of rants and personal attacks to uncover the occasional gem. None of this has been directed at me, so I don't take it personally; I'm just fed up with it. I'm curious enough about whether others are growing weary too, that I'll delay my unsubscribe request a day to see what response this might get. Frank Peele Pacific Photographic Redlands, CA USA -- -- 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] Re: Tiresome Arguments Ad Infinitum
on 4/17/02 2:46 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote: Todd, On another list, in a thread similar to this one, (fed up with the esoterica), the complainer facetiously suggested someone start a list called The Noise, where all these less-than-everyday-useful discussions can air freely, (and I would add, without the well intentioned but curmudgeonly hatchet of impatience coming down upon it). Without attempting or intending to belabor this tread, I would only note with respect to the above that even, if such a list were established, some wag would get on it and register the exact same complaints. Well said indeed, Mr. Solomon, indeed, indeed. Why so many lists want to rehash the same old newbie questions over and over Maybe - just maybe - because lists like this gets a continual flow of newbies - many of whom (a) do not know what took place previously, (b) who do not know where to find or how to find archives, and (c) who are too lazy to do any searching or research, too much in need of an immediate everday recipe on how to solve their problem, or too self absorbed in their own needs that they forget that what they are asking or saying is not new in the instutional history or memory of the list. Just for the record, there is nary a subject I myself am not a newbie to, and I'd never want to intimidate newbie from asking their questions. My point was just that to keep the sages around, to answer the mundane questions, and those more sophisticated when they arise, we need to give them some room to have some fun. A diverse list is best; that's all. Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Umax Powerlook III any good?
I'm considering the purchase of a used Umax Powerlook III, and I'd love to hear from anyone who has one what they do or don't like about it. I will be getting one with a transparency adapter but mostly for reflective scans and making contact sheets, as I already have a good film scanner. Is the max scan size of the transparency adapter sufficient for 35mm contacts using 6 rows of 6 frames PrintFile sleeves? Overall, how's the hardware, how's the software? Likes, dislikes??? Any feedback is appreciated. Todd Flashner Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Full frame scans
Laurie any and all these reasons may be correct, but the question remains, why is being locked into a cropped image deemed preferable to giving the option to crop OR go full frame, like a drum scan, or like photographers who file their own carriers? I am of the mind that tradition has gotten it wrong, that standard issue should be full frame carriers, with pay-extra-to-have-your-image-arbitrarily-cropped-carriers optional, and perpetuating an error is silly. So though you may have factually explained how manufacturers have allowed themselves (as has the paying public) to lapse into jaded ignorance, I can't conceive of how such apathy has gone on for so long. Oh well, call me an idealistic fool. Todd PS, Austin lives, Leaf rules! I've never understood why full frame holders weren't standard issue for enlargers and film scanners. I can think of a number of reasons. 1. Not everyone seeks full frame scans or enlargements. Full frame images with the black border or the frame numbers showing on the outer edge is sort of an artsy thing that became fashionable within the art circles a decade or so ago and may have even gone out of fashion by now. Most people, I would suggest crop their images when they print them and most analog prints (especially color ones) were made by automated processors which were designed to print borderless prints which were cropped to meet standard photographic paper sizes. Then digital scanning and printing came along and attempted to emulate traditional one hour lab photographic standards in terms of paper sizes and the cropping of 35mm proportions down to 8x10 proportions and aspect ratios. 2. Most early film scanners were used by those in the publishing industry who scanned primarily transparencies and not negatives. Hence most of the 35mm slides where in mounts that cropped the image and had to be removed to allow the film to be mounted on the drum of the drum scanner: thus they were individual frames and not strips. However, later with the emergence of the CDD filmscanner the 35mm slides were left in the mount for placement in film holders for the CDD film scanners primarily due to the fact that people were reluctant to go through the effort to remove the frames from the mounts in order to scan them and then had to remount the slides for storage. When these scanners were beginning to be used to scan 35mm negatives, which came from the processor in strips of 4 or 6, people did not want to cut the strips into individual frames for purposes of scanning or printing. It is not easy to make a full frame holder for a full strip of uncut negatives (4 to 6 in a strip) and retain the sorts of rigidity and flatness that is required to keep the film from buckling and bowing. As for medium format film, They usually have windows that are slightly larger than the frame but typically use masks that are slightly smaller than full frame to prevent stray light from hitting the image area during the scan so theoretically one could probably do a full frame 645 to 6x9 in the holders if you do not use the mask; but then there is nothing to prevent the film from buckling or bowing or stray light from hitting the image area. This is further complicated by the fact that most film holders for medium format used by film scanners, unlike enlarger film holders, do not utilize the clam shell design and probably could not effectively do so without the scanner becoming bigger and bulkier. 3. Designers tend to design for the masses in a mass market economy and not for the elite few; and even if they are designing for professionals and industrial users, they are designing for the masses within that market and not the unique few. 4. Lastly, tradition plays a big part. Film sizes and formats as well as paper sizes and formats tend to change frequently over time as to what aspect ratios they use; but despite that the sizes and formats that are considered standard tend to live longer lives and persist long after the size and format of the day has changed. Photographic paper as tended to be of certain sizes and photographic prints tended to keep to those sizes. Often camera manufacturer's have built cameras that utilize negative sizes with aspect ratios and formats which do not fit the standard traditional paper sizes. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Full frame scans
Can any of the new crop of medium format scanners have their film holders modified to produce full frame scans for both 35mm and 120mm formats? I like the filed out film holder approach, which reveals some film base, and yields a black border around the frame. Todd --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Full frame scans
on 12/23/01 1:59 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: It is possible for 35mm and maybe some of the smaller medium format sizes - 645 and 6x6 - on the Minolta Scan Multi and Multi II (I do not know about the Multi Pro, although I suspect it is possible there too). However, I do not think you would like the process with respect to 35mm and 645 formats. First you would need to cut the film down to individual or sets of two frames. Second you would have to put those frames in the glass medium format holder (in the case of 645 in a larger medium format glass holder) such that they were in the center section that the scanner will scan at the maximum optical resolution without interpolation. Third you would have to preview and scan each frame individually. As for the black borders you would have to do that yourself in Photoshop. Your right, I would not enjoy cutting my film down to individual frames and using glass! What about just filing out the film holders a bit? I've never understood why full frame holders weren't standard issue for enlargers and film scanners. I don't get why the designers/engineers/manufacturers believe we should want our images cropped, and then to loose more image to flare refracting off the holders edges. Who the hell designs these things, and what I really want to know is how that fool managed to get a job with every manufacturer out there Thanks Laurie Todd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing
To Austin: I think Harvey's point is that there may come a situation where someone wants a sharp scan of a blurry image. Why not, it's art! ;-) Austin wrote: You must be referring to color. I only talk about BW, and there is no inherent flaw in scanning BW, if you do not scan BW in RGB. The inherent flaw you speak of is simply bloom and smear, which isn't really a flaw but a characteristic of how CCDs respond to different wavelengths of light. I think on one level there can be no doubt a CCD film scanner (don't know enough about drum scanners to say) will loose sharpness, color or BW. It has to, it's an analog generational loss. Light passes through film and gets scattered, it then passes through a lens which possibly introduces flare, diffraction, and aberration, then it hits the CCD which is prone to blur, smear, and blooming, and finally the electronics introduce noise. It's analog, the question can really only be how much is lost, not if. The whole question about sharpness occurs to me as how sharp is sharp? Is a file the right degree of sharpness when a print from it is as sharp as a traditional darkroom print? Is that a contact print or an enlarged print? Cold light head or point source? Should the image at 100% magnification on screen look as sharp as the film through a 100x microscope? Or, is the right sharpness as sharp as one can make it in Photoshop before offensive artifacting occurs? Even if that makes it appear sharper than the original? On screen or in print? What output: film recorder, offset press, or Epson? If the output process softens an image is it fair to oversharpen in in anticipation? These are rhetorical questions which I pose purely to establish that sharpening is a choice, a variable, not a rule. To Harvey, who wrote: Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low bit scans? Harvey is it possible that by and large (certainly more so in the past than today) the higher bit scanners have been the higher quality scanners? I mean highbit used to come at a steep price, and from quality components. Still does for real bit depth as you put it, by which I think you mean extended dynamic range. To Austin who wrote: I don't know (nor do I believe at this point in time, at least for BW) that they do. Perhaps you can explain why you believe they do. For BW, it is entirely counterintuitive that they would. I also don't know if it's true or not. I think you are right that contrast is a condition for the perception of sharpness, and I don't know that low bit depth or high bit depth has any particular bearing on that. Clearly, a pure monotone image has the highest level of sharpness one can have, and adding more tones, just makes things less sharp. First a quibble with a word, just for the sake of clarity. A monotone image would be one shade, which has no contrast, so I know you mean a two-tone image. But what you say could be correct, but only if those two tones are of greater luminosity difference than the difference between the last two tones of a multi-tone image, and that is not guaranteed to be the case. IOW, you can have a two tone image of two very closely spaced gray values, which would have a low contrast appearance when compared to an image with 100 tones which span from white to black. I think what Harvey may be suggesting is that in the case of a scanner which is capable of a wider dynamic range, by virtue of not being limited by bit depth, you can get a wider range of clean tones than on a low bit depth scanner, and perhaps through that extended range you get a greater sense of overall contrast. If that is indeed what he means, I disagree, because it is contrast on a micro level which gives the sense of sharpness (contrast between pixels in direct proximity of each other) more than on a macro level (tones across the entirety of the image), and I don't know that bit depth or dynamic range has a direct relationship on micro contrast at all. What I have said is that people who sharpen might want to look at the rest of the process to find the source of why they sharpen...if the image is fuzzy on the film, it'll be fuzzy on the scan. Not the grain, but the image. True. Most people don't sharpen grain, they sharpen the image. Everybody's different. That's what makes the world a richer place. ;-) Todd
Re: filmscanners: Drum question
on 12/2/01 10:25 PM, SKID Photography wrote: We are contemplating the purchase of a Howtek, and were wondering how long the drums actually last. I had always assumed that they sort of lasted forever unless you dropped them or the like, but I keep on hearing about 'crazing'. Harvey I don't own a drum scanner so anything I have to say is purely third hand, but from what I've gleaned off lists, I only hear about the crazing of Howtek drums in the context of Kami mounting fluid. It might be a good idea to ask several of the supply houses what products they recommend using in conjunction with Howtek drums. Todd
Re: filmscanners: to David Hemingway: SS120 Reflections at scanborders
This is really no mystery, it's just that the neg holders are fairly thick, and somewhat reflective. This has always been a problem with large format enlargers with their thicker neg holders, and easily fixed. A little matte black paint around the inside edge of the holder goes a long way. Right. And if that doesn't work one can file the edge of the opening to about a 45 degree angle so that it is beveled away from the film. Use a small jewelers file, available at any decent hardware store or Radio Shack. Or petition the manufacturers to provide well executed holders - like full frame! Todd
Re: filmscanners: to David Hemingway: SS120 Reflections at scan borders
Bravo! Your support is exemplary! I hope they pay you well. ;-) Todd The petition has been received and is being acted on! David This is really no mystery, it's just that the neg holders are fairly thick, and somewhat reflective. This has always been a problem with large format enlargers with their thicker neg holders, and easily fixed. A little matte black paint around the inside edge of the holder goes a long way. Right. And if that doesn't work one can file the edge of the opening to about a 45 degree angle so that it is beveled away from the film. Use a small jewelers file, available at any decent hardware store or Radio Shack. Or petition the manufacturers to provide well executed holders - like full frame! Todd
Re: filmscanners: creating correction curves from scannedcalibration chart?
ShAf I haven't been following from the beginning so I'm not clear on what you are trying to do, but two/three things things: Different RGB color spaces will yield different values for the same color. That's why when you convert to profile you can choose to keep the appearance of the colors, but change the number description of it, or vice versa. So what those numbers should be is space dependant. However, for a neutral gray they (RGB) SHOULD all be the same number. Forget what Ned said about RGB being device dependant (sorry Ned), that was pre Photoshop 4, when your monitor profile was used as your system profile (before my time so don't ask). The idea of abstract color spaces, like Adobe RGB, or sRGB, is precisely that they ARE device independent. In the curves or Levels dialog box, where you'd access the gray eyedropper, if you double click the gray eyedropper icon, it will open a dialog box where you can enter the numbers which you want the point you click to be set too. If there are no color crossovers in your gray (where highlights might have a different cast than shadows) the gray eyedropper should work. However if you utilize the eyedropper through curves and look at your individual channel curves after, you'll see only one point on each curve is utilized. The eyedropper will only be neutralizing the point you click on. Color crossovers would require multiple points on a curve, and would probably best be set manually. What I do is select the eyedropper from the MAIN tool pallet. Shift+click up to 4 separate areas to anchor an eyedropper there for readout in the info pallet (shift+drag to slide them around, or drag them off the image to remove). Open a Curves adj. layer. CMD+CLick on one of your eyedropper anchor points and that will attach a point on each curve for that tone. Watch the readout for that point in the info pallet, and adjust each of those curve/points till all your RGB values for that point read the same. Do the same for each anchor point. Then go back and fine tune. It's very hard to get all your points dead on, but if one of your RGB values is off a point or two here or there it's usually pretty unnoticeable in the real world. Hope that helps. Todd Maris writes ... If you're using PS, click on each the points in the image that you want to set, check the read numbers, then click, ... Bob writes ... I think if you control-shift-click on each point it will set those points on the individual channel curve line. ... Control-clikking a region in the image allows me to manually set the curve ... for each RGB channel ... a bit tedious. If you can't use the gray eyedropper (and its target) to easily do this, then I'm apparently missing the point of the gray eyedropper (and its target). thanx ... shAf :o) | From: michael shaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (2) What is the best way to create the curves? For example, | I would like to use the target for the curve's gray eyedropper | to change the curve such that 115/118/116 becomes 117/117/117, | ... and for a different gray, 155/159/154 becomes 157/157/157 | ... but the gray eyedropper doesn't seem to work this way(?) | | |
Re: filmscanners: creating correction curves from scannedcalibration chart?
However, for a neutral gray they (RGB) SHOULD all be the same number. no, total rubbish. the profile defines the relationship between the value and the actual colour output. Profiles do NOT attempt to balance the RGB or CMYK or CMYKOG or whatever values, they are simply the actual transfer functions between RGB (say) and XYZ (for example). They could be 157,23,45 for mid grey - it doesn't matter. Forget what Ned said about RGB being device dependant (sorry Ned), that was pre Photoshop 4, when your monitor profile was used as your system profile (before my time so don't ask). The idea of abstract color spaces, like Adobe RGB, or sRGB, is precisely that they ARE device independent. Adobe RGB and sRGB are simply attempts to define a device-independant RGB - which is totally pointless when you could use XYZ or even at a push LAB, but they are there so most other programs like image viewers and web browsers can simply display the images raw without any colour transformations and still look reasonable. Those two profiles are hopelessly compromised and should be avoided if at all possible. If your scanner outputs in a true device-independant manner, such as LAB, choose that. Again, I don't know where this conversation started so I probably just don't know what context you are talking about. For a file inside of a device independent working space, like AdobeRGB, or sRGB, or Colormatch, R=G=B gives neutral color. If you then Convert To Profile, and select an output device profile, then you are right, all bets are off, that tone which was neutral will not be neutral any longer, because it will now be converted to a device dependant profiles description. Thus, that would NOT be a device independent space any longer, nor would whatever tone WAS neutral before the conversion now look neutral on screen. The reason people don't edit in Lab is because it's an extremely unintuitive space to work in, and while it possesses great power for strong image correction it is not considered to be subtle enough for most common corrections. It's certainly useable by advanced users, but even then most users will do their common editing in more user friendly space. Some people like to share their files in Lab space however, because it's profile independent, thus there is less likelihood for funky conversions by users unaware of color management issues. Are we starting to talk the same language? I apologize for coming into this in the middle, it surely adds to the confusion. Todd I've come of retirement for this one :-) From: Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ned _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD andimages
on 11/11/01 8:54 PM, Rob Geraghty wrote: PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is irrelevent to Mac users? Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac? There are IDE RAID solutions for the Mac but not many. Only around three or 4 last I looked. Sonnet and Acard make hardware cards, and VST makes a card that uses SoftRAID (I think that's the name) which is a software solution. There may be a couple of others Todd
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
5 frames in one strip. the 1640SU can't do that as the transparency unit is only large enough to fit a 3 frame strip. i'm keeping an eye out for tabloid scanners on ebay now. thanks much. ~j You'd be well served to get a scanner like Austin describes. I looked for a while then decided I was too cheap. I cut my 35mm rolls into 6 strip lengths, so when I'm not so cheap so as to squeeze that damn 37th frame out of the roll ;-) I can fit 6 strips of 6 exposures on my cheapo Umax Astra 1200 with transparency adapter (which allows up to 8x10 scans) IF I lay them directly on the glass without a printfile sleeve. IOW, laying the film directly on the glass with edges all snug up against each other, they fit thew 8x10 adapter. It works, but if I weren't so cheap I'd rather have the tabloid scanner and keep my negs in the print file pages. Just remember to factor the cost of the transparency adapter into your decision making equation. Todd PS, Of course, if you cut your negs into strips of 5 it's a different situation.
Re: filmscanners: About 12 or 16 bits
on 10/27/01 11:41 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: Sorry, you're not right. I believe the 12 bit data is raw data with no setpoints at all...those have to be manually set in PS. The 12 data will be high bit justified in the 16 bit word, and no intermediate values will be interpolated and there will be gaps between valid data points. These gaps are not relevant. I just had a thought about high bit vs Low bit justification. Does the scanner do anything different in the firmware (this is where the justification comes into play, right) when you are scanning negatives vs positives, or is it all handled in the software? Wondering if one type of film might be high bit justified while another is low bit justified, or is that not variable in that way? Todd
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs/ for Austin
on 10/22/01 10:04 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: I'm sure it comes as no surprise, but my vote for best film scanner for BW is the Leafscan. The reason being it uses a single neutral density filter for BW scans, instead of using all three (or even one or more) of the color channels to derive a BW scan. I know that CCD scans that use all three color channels are somewhat fuzzier, simply because of the smear and bloom most apparent in the red channel, then the blue channel. The green certainly is the best channel if you have to use color for BW scans, IMO. Hey Austin, recently I did an RGB scan of a BW negative (the Konica IR you've seen, with it's dense blue base) on my Leaf (max res, HDR) and the red channel was the sharpest channel! I was shocked, as that deviates from my experience and expectation. Any ideas as to why the sharpest channel might vary on a scan by scan basis? Could it be calibration drift? Could that affect the sharpness of channels? Todd
Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
Shough, Just how is this chart/print supposed to be interpreted? At first I thought all resolutions printed well on my Epson1160 with MIS VM quadtone inks. Then I noticed that there are heavy lines scattered about within each resolution target, but then I looked at the PDF, and they are there too. However, as I change the view magnification in acrobat, their location shifts. As some of this appears to be either an optical illusion, or an effect that occurs within the monitor or the path to the monitor, I have no idea how closely my print should match my screen view in this regard. If I am just looking for the little line slashes to print without jaggies (aliasing) then I'd say, on my setup, all targets print excellent. Todd Here is the pdf file that I created that will test your print driver and see what it does at various resolutions. Make sure that you do not allow Acrobat to shrink oversize pages or to expand small pages. Printer ResizeTest.pdf This file prints out the same image at various resolutions ranging from 239 dpi up to 2400 dpi. The image contains slanted, one pixel wide lines, both black on white and white on black. Sorry, I do not remember who first posted the basic image with the suggestion to print it at various resolutions If I remember correctly, it was Jack Phelps (sp?) of Applied Science Fiction. - all I did was to combined the various resolutions into one pdf file. When I print the file on either an Alps MD5000 or a couple of different HP laser printers, only the 300 dpi image prints correctly. All other images have been resampled. I would be interested in the results with other printers, especially the Epsons.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Todd writes: It's called licensing. I know what it is called. However, having a name for it doesn't make it ethical. Here's a fortune cookie for ya, Anthony: You have great energy, put it to good use. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
You missed nothing. ;-) Todd I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with thousands in expenses. Am I missing something? Tom From: Anthony Atkielski snip Many artists can recover all their costs, and then some, on the very first sale. An artist who sells a day's work for $200 doesn't need any additional income from royalties. And if he were a bricklayer, he wouldn't receive any.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
But is it really ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody else has that privilege. It's called licensing. The music industry, film industry, and software industry, are based upon it, to name just a few. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/9/01 1:51 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: If there are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness. Banner ads. Todd
Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro
Isn't this boundary the halo that USM is built upon? The idea of USM (and this is way to short an explanation) is to introduce just such edge contrast around and/or between objects and transition zones. The width of these halos are controlled by the Radius slider in the USM dialog box. Try decreasing your Radius substantially to see if that helps. Also check out these two articles: http://www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/11242.html http://www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/12189.html Todd Brian, Honestly, it is too soon for me to answer than question. The scanning I've done with it so far has been low-res web scanning. I certainly haven't noticed the boundary problems you described. I have not, however, scanned for printing at full resolution. Once I do that, I'll let post more results. For the purpose I've used it so far, I've been very pleased. Tom Tom, I find your comments intriguing. Could I ask a few questions? I find that when I sharpen using Photoshop tools, there is oftentimes an artificial dark or light line (sharpening artifact) that appears at the juxtaposition or boundary of a dark and light area. This causes me to spend a good deal of time cleaning these things up. Does this this sharpening plugin eliminate this problem? If it does I would say the price was worth it. I would be most interested in your observations on this. thanks, Brian
Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro
Sharpening is typically best done at the end, after manipulations, and catered to a particular size/resolution/use. With that in mind, if you want to use Nik, but it over sharpens for you, here's how I'd apply it. This is but one way, but it's a good down and dirty way, short of sharpening individual channels, or applying blending masks, or layer blending sliders. You should save and archive a copy of your finished file with layers and all, but without sharpening. This will be your master file for repurposing later (other uses at other sizes). But before closing that file dupe it, flatten the dupe, and scale it to size. Leave your full resolution file unsharpened and save it. Now you have a flattened version to sharpen that has just one layer. Drag that layer to the new layer icon of the layers pallet, so that your file now contains two duplicate layers stacked on top of each other. Make the top one active and set it's mode to Luminosity, and apply Nik to that layer only. Now you can adjust the opacity slider of that layer to set the final amount of sharpening. Your sharpening is now variable. Setting the sharpened layer to luminosity reduces aberrant color fringing. It is similar to converting the file to LAB, and sharpening just the Luminosity channel. If you want to get fancier still, you can now add layer masks to the sharpened layer, or double click it to access the Layer Options and apply it with blending sliders. Todd Well, now that I am done building the pages, I admit that contrary to my initial optimism, when I view the completed pages, they are oversharpened. Darn. I wanted this to work better. I'll play with it some more, but I suspect I've thrown away the money. I'll look into what you just suggested. Tom At 19:24 09-09-01 +, you wrote: I find Nik Sharpener utterly useless-- it ALWAYS oversharpens, no matter what settings I use. Agreed. I've seen it in action and think it's grossly overpriced for what little it does as opposed to custom Photoshop actions or packages like UltraSharpenPro. I can do a better job with careful settings on PS's USM tool, sharpening individual channels, etc. The BEST way is to use one of the PS Actions that creates a custom edge mask for you image before you apply USM. I forget the URL for Johnny's versions, but there is also a very good one from Katrin Eismann at www.digitalretouch.org. See ftp://ftp.pinkheadedbug.com and http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html
