[filmscanners] RE: Sprintscan 4000 on a Mac -- anyone using SCSI-to-USB cable
I have used one on a PC successfully; but you need to know if there are drivers for your Mac since these adapters all require platform specific drivers. You also need to know what version of SCSI the adapter works with SCSI 1, SCSI II, SCSI III, and what SCSI cable connections the adapter works with (i.e., how many pins). -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of sn...@cox.net Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 9:41 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Sprintscan 4000 on a Mac -- anyone using SCSI-to-USB cable The recent posts about selling a Sprintscan reminded me to post this question again: I need to use my Sprintscan 4000 on a 2008 Mac Pro without a SCSI adapter card. I have seen SCSI-to-USB cables such as this: Addlogix USB-XFormer 2.0 USB 2.0 to Ultra SCSI/Adapter (usb2-uscsi) Storage Controller Image USB SCSI Adapter - Connect external SCSI devices to USB! - Ratoc U2SCX Has anyone used such a cable successfully? Or is there a good PCI SCSI card that will work in a Mac Pro running OS X 10.5+? Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
Jim, Sort of a natural mistake since most people associate all scanner drivers as twain drivers, which most were when all scanners were 32 bit. Epson probably did refer to the driver as a "64-bit driver" without bothering to distinguish between twain based drivers and WIA based drivers, which Microsoft has moved to for all their versions of OS since Vista. I am not sure if the drivers for Macs are twain or WIA or something else and if there are 64 bit Mac drivers available or not since I do not use a Mac. It may be that the new Mac OSs have opted to use WIA drivers as well and that one can use said drivers to work in 64 bit on their systems. I was not trying to put you or anyone else down for the confusion but was merely seeking to maintain some clarification of the various differences between ASPI layers, Twain drivers, and WIA drivers as well as their relationship to SCSI and USB interfaces and 32 bit versus 64 bit OSs and drivers. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:00 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, Laurie, I could be wrong calling the Epson driver a 64-bit twain driver. If memory serves me, Epson referred to it as a "64-bit driver". I did not ask for it as I was, and still am, on 32-bit machines - mainly because of the Sprintscan 120. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed a > proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain driver > since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain > driver by the twain working group consortium even though they talked about > doing so and there was never any implementation of an official 64-bit twain > driver although there may have been implementations of 64 bit drivers for > scanners by third parties (e.g. Ed Hamrick) manufacturers as proprietary > items. It is quite possible that what you got was a 64 bit WIA interface > driver which allows the scanner to work with 64 bit Windows Vista machines > and maybe XP. > > I see where there is now some discussion online about standards for a 64 bit > version 2.0 twain driver set of standards (version 1 discussions were > abandoned a few years ago); but the discussions do not seem to have reached > a firm enough stage that there have been any fully implemented instances of > such a twain driver that are working drivers issued by software developers. > > -Original Message- > From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk > [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of James L. Sims > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:55 PM > To: lau...@advancenet.net > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, > > I have an Epson 1600, that's older than my Polaroid 120 and Epson has > provided 64-bit twain drivers for it. But you're right, the 120 will > have to stay with a 32-bit XP machine. > > Jim > > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >> Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and >> > Vista > >> X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third >> party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed >> > WMA > >> drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB >> based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an >> ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case >> with SCSI based scanners of old. There is a difference between drivers >> which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such >> things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to >> > recognize > >> the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk >> [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of >> caryeno...@enochsvision.com >> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM >> To: lau...@advancenet.net >> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, >> >> I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in >> Vista-x64. I used >> the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that >> > I > >> downloaded >> from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made >> > the > >> low beep that >> it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner >> > works > >> perfectly in >> Vuescan Prof. It was recognized i
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
caryeno...@enochsvision.com, I apologize for using your post as a vehicle for posting a correction to one of my earlier posts where I referred to WMA drivers when I should have referred to WIA drivers. I am sorry if my error in reference has caused any confusion or trouble. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of caryeno...@enochsvision.com Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:39 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, Silverfast provides a 64-bit installer for the V500 (and presumably related Epson scanners). It's WIA and it installs both a standalone client and a plug-in for Photoshop. Silverfast also provides an optional TWAIN version but there's no reason to install it that I can see. In the flier packaged with the scanner, Epson tells you not to install from the CD. They point you to their website so you can install the latest 64-bit driver for it. That appears to be a WIA driver. Epson's OEM software is like most OEM software; it's mediocre and very basic. You need either Vuescan or Silverfast. I use Silverfast Studio Ai version 6.6. Additional comment below. On 14-Jun-09 12:41, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed a > proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain driver > since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain > driver by the twain working group consortium even though they talked about > doing so and there was never any implementation of an official 64-bit twain > driver although there may have been implementations of 64 bit drivers for > scanners by third parties (e.g. Ed Hamrick) manufacturers as proprietary > items. It is quite possible that what you got was a 64 bit WIA interface > driver which allows the scanner to work with 64 bit Windows Vista machines > and maybe XP. > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >> Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and > Vista There's no "yes but." I explicitly stated that I installed a USB scanner so my comments applied only to that. >> X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third >> party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed > WMA >> drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB >> based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an >> ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case >> with SCSI based scanners of old. Do any prosumer manufacturers even make SCSI scanners anymore? > There is a difference between drivers >> which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such >> things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to > recognize >> the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. I know that. I didn't say they were the same. You might be responding to someone else's post there. >> I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in >> Vista-x64. I used >> the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that > I downloaded from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made > the low beep that it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner > works perfectly in Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. >> Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. -- Cary Enoch Reinstein, Enoch's Vision Inc. http://www.enochsvision.com Blog: http://www.enochsvision.net - "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." (Joseph Campbell) Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed a proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain driver since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain driver by the twain working group consortium even though they talked about doing so and there was never any implementation of an official 64-bit twain driver although there may have been implementations of 64 bit drivers for scanners by third parties (e.g. Ed Hamrick) manufacturers as proprietary items. It is quite possible that what you got was a 64 bit WIA interface driver which allows the scanner to work with 64 bit Windows Vista machines and maybe XP. I see where there is now some discussion online about standards for a 64 bit version 2.0 twain driver set of standards (version 1 discussions were abandoned a few years ago); but the discussions do not seem to have reached a firm enough stage that there have been any fully implemented instances of such a twain driver that are working drivers issued by software developers. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:55 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, I have an Epson 1600, that's older than my Polaroid 120 and Epson has provided 64-bit twain drivers for it. But you're right, the 120 will have to stay with a 32-bit XP machine. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and Vista > X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third > party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed WMA > drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB > based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an > ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case > with SCSI based scanners of old. There is a difference between drivers > which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such > things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to recognize > the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. > > -Original Message- > From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk > [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of > caryeno...@enochsvision.com > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM > To: lau...@advancenet.net > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, > > I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in > Vista-x64. I used > the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that I > downloaded > from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made the > low beep that > it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner works > perfectly in > Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. > > Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. > > I went ahead and bought Silverfast Ai Studio for it for a variety of reasons > mostly > related to the difficult faded originals. They're very old filmstrips of > great historical > value that I'm restoring. Silverfast isn't as easy to use as Vuescan but I > felt the more > finely tuned results justified the high price. Btw, Silverfast had no > problems recognizing > the scanner either. That's because Lasersoft customizes each version for a > specific > scanner. Vuescan should drive virtually any scanner right out of the box. > It's amazing. > > I made sample scans on a friend's V750 and could not discern any difference > in quality > between those scans and the ones on the V500 -- and I am very picky. The > optics are > probably better on the V750 though. Don't bother with the Epson OEM > software. Either > Vuescan or Silverfast are greatly superior. Your choice. > > On 13-Jun-09 15:43:44, LAURIE SOLOMON (lau...@advancenet.net) wrote: > >> SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS. >> >> You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to >> recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB >> connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to >> work which is different from getting the OS to recognize the hardware and >> requires device drivers. The traditional scanner and scanner drivers >> were and are proprietary software connected twain drivers, which are only >> > 32 > >> bit and will not work with 64 bit OSs. Ed Hamrick by passes the twain >> driver and has written his own drivers for scanners; they may be 64
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and Vista X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed WMA drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case with SCSI based scanners of old. There is a difference between drivers which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to recognize the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of caryeno...@enochsvision.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in Vista-x64. I used the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that I downloaded from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made the low beep that it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner works perfectly in Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. I went ahead and bought Silverfast Ai Studio for it for a variety of reasons mostly related to the difficult faded originals. They're very old filmstrips of great historical value that I'm restoring. Silverfast isn't as easy to use as Vuescan but I felt the more finely tuned results justified the high price. Btw, Silverfast had no problems recognizing the scanner either. That's because Lasersoft customizes each version for a specific scanner. Vuescan should drive virtually any scanner right out of the box. It's amazing. I made sample scans on a friend's V750 and could not discern any difference in quality between those scans and the ones on the V500 -- and I am very picky. The optics are probably better on the V750 though. Don't bother with the Epson OEM software. Either Vuescan or Silverfast are greatly superior. Your choice. On 13-Jun-09 15:43:44, LAURIE SOLOMON (lau...@advancenet.net) wrote: > SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS. > > You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to > recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB > connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to > work which is different from getting the OS to recognize the hardware and > requires device drivers. The traditional scanner and scanner drivers > were and are proprietary software connected twain drivers, which are only 32 > bit and will not work with 64 bit OSs. Ed Hamrick by passes the twain > driver and has written his own drivers for scanners; they may be 64 bit capable. > > -Original Message- > On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com > Ed Hamrick.would know the OS/software issues. -- Cary Enoch Reinstein, Enoch's Vision Inc. http://www.enochsvision.com Blog: http://www.enochsvision.net - "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." (Joseph Campbell) Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
Win 7 is what Vista was suppose to be and should have been unless they screw it up between now and its public release in Oct. 2009. As I noted before, there are no 64 bit twain drivers and never have been any. So scanners typically could not be used with the 64 bit OSs unless the maker supplied a proprietary driver which would allow the scanner to work with the bundled scanner software but would not permit one to scan from within third party applications like Photoshop as a Twain driver would. The driver issue with Windows x64 and Vista 64 was and is different from the ASPI layer problem which allowed the OSs to recognized the actual physical device with SCSI based devices. Here the problem was a short feud between Microsoft and Adaptec where Microsoft stopped including the Adaptec ASPI layer (which Adaptec developed and owned) in the Windows OSs. During this brief feud, Microsoft attempted to develop their ow2n version of the ASPI layer; but most SCSI scanners would not recognize it or support it; hence people needed to download from Adaptec the ASPI layer software code and install it in the Windows OSs. Later, the feud ended and Microsoft again supported the Adaptec ASPI layer code. However, by then scanners were dropping the SCSI connection and turning to USB; and Microsoft began developing its own non-twain WMA driver criteria which was introduced in Vista 32 and 64 bit editions, dropping support for 32 bit twain drivers, which will still work in 32 bit Vista but were not included in box with it. Win 7 32 bit and 64 bit will no longer support 32 bit twain drivers or furnish them in box with the OS. Moreover, scanner manufacturers have introduced in their newer models USB based scanners, dropping SCSI, and new WMA drivers (both 32 and 64 bit drivers) for the newly introduced models; but they have not made any attempt to develop said drivers for their older models. Thus unless you are running 32 bit XP or Vista in virtual mode under Win 7 or running a dual boot system, you may not be able to use your old 32 bit twain driver based scanners in the new Microsoft OSs -especially the 64 bit versions. You should be aware, if you are not already, that the upgrade path from XP to Win 7 will (a) require a clean install of Win 7, although there should be many more 64 bit drivers available than there was for X64 or Vista 64, or (b) necessitate a upgrade from X64 to Vista 64 before upgrading from Vista to Win 7. One will not be able to directly upgrade from X64 to Win 7 and have all the settings and registry entries transferred automatically. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:50 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, X64 is an oddball OS. Really a bastardized version of server2003. I can't wait to get rid of it for Windows 7. X64 predates Vista64, but was supposed to be easily (cough cough) upgraded to Vista. Well, it required a new install and for the longest time the drivers were better under X64 than Vista-64. Then Vista was proclaimed to suck, so I stayed with X64. On usenet, the old X64 users have proclaimed Windows 7 to be the 2nd coming of the messiah of your choice. Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS. You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to work which is different from getting the OS to recognize the hardware and requires device drivers. The traditional scanner and scanner drivers were and are proprietary software connected twain drivers, which are only 32 bit and will not work with 64 bit OSs. Ed Hamrick by passes the twain driver and has written his own drivers for scanners; they may be 64 bit capable. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:07 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, Ed Hamrick.would know the OS/software issues. There i s something funny about scsi and aspi. For X64, I had to search the net and load some 3rd party ASPI stuff to run my usb scanner. Yes, I know this doesn't make sense, but I guess scsi is than a physical interface. That pc is in pieces at the moment, but I can probably find the stu ff I had to load once it is running again. -Origin al Message- From: "Tony Sleep" Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:48:56 To: Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfectio n V750-M Pro Scanner, On 13/06/2009 James L. Sims wrot e: > With the support for my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 now unavailable, I am > looking for a replacement. Vuesc an should resolve antique s/w issues on Windows, though S CSI support may become more awkward I believe ASPI drive rs are available for Vista. On Mac I don't know with cur rent OSX, but similar was possible. Same applies to SCSI Nikons etc. Regarding physical service, I recently po pped the lid off my Polaroid 4000 (4 lever tabs) as it s eemed to have got rather flary and low contrast with som e strongly backlit slides that included bright background s, despite living under a dust cover when not in use. Half a dozen self-tappers later and I was able to remov e the lamp holder and the top of the film carrier carria ge. I was then able to clean the angled mirror with a DS LR sensor swab - it was covered in a thick layer of dust . Inspection with a torch showed the lens to be clean, re flected in the mirror. I then cleaned every trace of dus t and dirt from the mechanism surfaces I could get at, a nd wiped and re-lubricated the helical carriage advance screws. Result : a total transformation! Scans bright and clean, loads more shadow detail - virtually everythi ng in Kodachrome. No flare and colour much easier to get spot on. The mechanism sounds happier for lubrication to o. No more misfeeding neg carrier either, which the scan ner has been mistaking for the slide carrier half the ti me, for about the last 4 years. I wish I'd done it earli er, as I now think I should really rescan quite a lot. > Has anyone had any experience with Epson's > V750M? The specs. look impressive if they hold up. No exper ience, but if I had the money I'd have bought one to scan the relatively small amount of 120 I have. From reading reviews the V750 is very little different from the much cheaper V700. Lens coating seems very slightly better a nd you get Silverfast with the 750. Most important factor appears to be stand-offs for the film carrier, which ca n be improvised. Personally I'd use Vuescan anyway. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk --- - Unsubscribe by mail to list ser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' o r 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in t he message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings
Encryption can be done locally; but what can be encrypted can be unencrypted if someone really wants to. Given the rash of allegedly secure information that has managed to get publically distributed these days with respect to major supposedly high security operations such as banks, corporations, governmental agencies that have lost confidential secure data, I would not dismiss security as being not much of an issue. Of course there is always the problem of the hard drives and storage facilities at these online off-location data storage operations going bad, going down when you need to retrieve the data, or just getting corrupted despite any and all precautions. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:57 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings Security isn't much of an issue these days since you coul d encrypt locally. Goin out of business is very likely. M ediastor was in the same business and went under. -Original Message- From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:23:29 To: Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings >I'd like to point out that I neve r had a Seagate product fail. Of >course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. I have had a c ouple of them go bad; but I have had a number of brands g o bad. Hard drives after all are mechanical devices; an d their internal parts do wear out, do get damaged, and do get overheated. Some brands go bad sooner than others even if they have extended long warrantees. When they d o it is a pain to send them back for warrantee service a nd to lose the data on them. >The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Yes, except if th ey go out of business or have security issues, which are distinct possibilities in this day and age. Like so man y others, I have found that many services offer good rat es and terms, good service and security, and the like wh en they are new and trying to establish themselves and a client base. However after the introductory offer or pe riod, things change with pricing going up, terms changin g, service and security declining, etc. By then, you ca n terminate your service or move to a different online s torage operation if things change to your disliking; but they count on the inconvenience factor and inertia to ke ep you even if things change for the worst. Most people overstay their welcome due to the inconvenience of movi ng their data from those storage facilities to new ones or purchasing additional drives to store the data on at h ome or at an external location like a bank vault. - Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halft one.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:05 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of course, that coul d be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. Of course , I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had no failures. I've built PCs for people that would s pend the extra money for a Seagate and had the drives ar rive DOA. More than once mind you. One was from IBM, and the other Fujitsu, a company I thought had it's act tog ether. If you get external drives, consider spending a bit more and get esata. I have this general distrust of USB. http://www.carbonite.com/ These people advertis e heavily on http://techguylabs.com/radio/pmwiki.php I have no idea if the service is any good, but it is onli ne offsite storage, and relatively cheap. Offer code I b elieve is Leo, but you could just listen to any of his p odcasts and get the code. The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Tony Sleep wrote : > On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: >> I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives > > RAID can add res ilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't > forget the other 4! > > Here I have: > 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB > 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) > 2 x 1T B for offsite backup. > > So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. > > -- > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://tonysleep.co.uk > > --- - Unsubscribe by mail to listse r...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in th e message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail
[filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings
>From my understanding JPEG 2000 is a dead fish in terms of support and adoptions. If my understanding is correct, you would wind up with orphaned files that neither you nor anyone else would be able to open and read in the future; not good for archives. :-) The standard JPEG and the TIFF are at least universal and established formats that are supported by almost all programs and are likely to be so in the future. >You are should do the LWZ tiff. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:52 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings You can JPEG2000, which has a lossless option. I would have to research it, but I think it only uses 8 per color. You are should do the LWZ tiff. Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film scanning: new option
It was not I who posed the question, "So am I delusional according died-in-the-wool scanners?" in my post or who made a point of noting that they grounded their question in the comparative findings based on an empirical test situation. I was merely suggesting the sorts of clarifications and information that I would need to attempt an answer to your posed question. Since it was not my question and I have no real interest in either resolving the issues I raised or in going to the trouble to determine empirically for myself if your findings are delusional or not, I have no need to test it for myself. In point of fact, I did not read your post as merely throwing out an idea as much as asking for an answer to a question which will either verify what you appear to have concluded or disproves what you think you observed. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Norm Carver Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:39 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] film scanning: new option My dear Solomon, I appreciate your response, but, me thinks you do get a bit carried away I was merely throwing out an idea, not writng a scientific treatise. Of course, if one is doing a comparison, one uses the same negative for both--otherwise what is the point! And keeps all other variables to a minimum. As for all other issues, I suggest if you are interested you test it for yourself Norm Carver Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film scanning: new option
It is hard to say if you are delusional or not since you have failed to give us enough data to say if the two are comparable or if they are apples and oranges. You say you were comparing 400o dpi scans on a Nikon 8000 film scanner of 6x6 negatives (were the ones used for the comparison color or black and white negatives?) with copy negatives (the exact same 6x6 negatives as used with the scanner?) shot with a Canon 5D-II (22 megapixel) using a Canon 50mm macro lens at f11. You then go on to tell us that you printed the scan and copy negatives as 50"x50" 300 dpi B&W prints with an Epson 3800 inkjet printer. (The 300 dpi resolution is really low for a final printed output resolution; do you mean that to be 300 ppi for the file's final input resolution - e.g., the resolution of the file in pixels per inch that was sent to the printer to be printed?) The above is ambiguous and vague enough to hinder any sort of a proper evaluation of your findings based on what you have written. You also have not said how they - in each sample - were converted to B&W from color if we are talking of color negatives and/or how - in each sample - they were reversed from negative images to positive images in the case of either B&W or Color (but especially color). This can impact on sharpness and the correctness of color rendering or black and white tonality especially if they were not converted and/or reversed using the same process and method. If you are talking about translating the raw scanner and camera generated files into 300 ppi standard format image files, in the case of both the scanner and the camera, what interpolation methods were used to in each case to generate the standard format files into 300 ppi image files and where was it accomplished (i.e., the scanner and camera software or in an image editing program) prior to sending the files to the printer whose driver printed them at the 720, 1440, or 2880 dpi printing resolution that characterized the printed image? If you are saying that he final printed image had a printed final output resolution of 300 dpi, what was the resolution of the image files in ppi that were exported to the printer for printing and how was that file resolution arrived at? These things are important when attempting an evaluation and that the same methods of interpolation and amounts of interpolation be used in all cases is important for comparisons. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Norm Carver Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:02 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] film scanning: new option Since I have hundreds of 6x6 negs and color to digitize and am frustated by the slowness of film scanners in general I have recently begun copying negs with my new Canon 5D-II (22 meg). After some comparitive tests with 4000dpi scans on the Nikon 8000 I can say the follwing: 1. B&W 300dpi prints on Epson 3800 enlarged to equal 50" x 50" are indistinguishable 2. The copies tend to be sharper corner to corner than scans (used Canon 50mm macro @ f11) 3. The time is cut to at least 1/3 (there is a slght more batch processing time going from RAW to Mon 4. There is no doubt the scans have more data and I would go that way for difficult images or huge prints. So am I delusional according died-in-the-wool scanners? Norm Carver nfcar...@iserv.net Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: ADMIN: LIST BACK
It did, so I guess all is well with the world. :-) Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Marquis-Kyle Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: LIST BACK > Tony Sleep wrote: >> The list should now be operating normally again. > > Thanks Tony, let's see if this reply shows up on the list. > > Peter Marquis-Kyle > > > > -- > -- > 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: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
> My 2c cents here: USB printers, scanners and other > peripherals that plug into the wall or are battery-powered > typically don't draw power from the USB port so are not affected by > the 500mA limit. Unfortunately, this is not true. The power that is drawn from the USB connection has nothing to do with the power drawn from the wall to power or run the device per se. Power drawn from the USB port is used to overcome resistance in the cabling and power the transmission of data down the cable - not to power the device. Powered hubs are active hubs that get power from a transformer source that plugs into the wall but uses this power to replenishing the USB cable line power that is lost to resistance or too many devices making power demands on the hub for their cabling and data transmission. > The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power > requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than > others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to > 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port > to another) On these points, I concur. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Knox Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply > My 2c cents here: USB printers, scanners and other > peripherals that plug into the wall or are battery-powered > typically don't draw power from the USB port so are not affected by > the 500mA limit. > > The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power > requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than > others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to > 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port > to another) -- I suppose you've tried it in other ports? > > How does it perform with a flash drive? > > For best results with USB you do need to be running XP SP1 or > SP2 -- there's a patch on M$ updates somewhere for the original > verion of XP. > > Charles > > Jim wrote: >> I have three devices plus a seven-and-one card reader, all connected >> to onboard USB ports. My trackball, an Epson 1640 scanner and R2400 >> printer work fine but the card reader fails to se the Compact Flash >> card when it's inserted and a reboot is required - much like my older >> machine, running win 2K did when I turned on my scanner. >> >> Jim >> >> Laurie Solomon wrote: >> >>> If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub, this can >>> create problems - especially if you have several devices that have >>> power requirements connected to the same hub directly or daisy >>> chained to it. Furthermore, despite the claims, two many devices >>> and/or hubs daisy chained of the same USB port as well as very long >>> cable runs can cause problems as well. The motherboard bus can >>> only supply so much power to each of the USB ports. The 120 plus >>> devices that they say can be connected typically are either low >>> power or non-power consuming devices (like mice and keyboards); or >>> they need to have an external power source such as an active >>> powered hub or a directly powered transformer source. >>> >>> Like SCSI devices, sometimes USB devices do not get along with other >>> USB devices and do not share ports or daisy chains nicely. This can >>> cause the OS to fail to recognize the device on a plug and play >>> basis, requiring one to have to either reboot or to disconnect and >>> reconnect the device or to turn off the power to the device and >>> then turn it back on for the system to recognize it. >>> >>> Original Message >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. >>> Sims Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:31 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply >>> >>> >>> >>>> These are USB devices, Tony. I was told by a so-called computer >>>> guru that this problem was corrected in XP. It could be that the >>>> device is incorrectly installed - it's a USB 2 device but its >>>> speed, or slowness, indicated that Win XP thinks it an early USB >>>> device. I've tried uninstalling the USB controllers reinstalling >>>> them but to no avail. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> Tony Sleep wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 02/06/2006 James L. Sims
[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub, this can create problems - especially if you have several devices that have power requirements connected to the same hub directly or daisy chained to it. Furthermore, despite the claims, two many devices and/or hubs daisy chained of the same USB port as well as very long cable runs can cause problems as well. The motherboard bus can only supply so much power to each of the USB ports. The 120 plus devices that they say can be connected typically are either low power or non-power consuming devices (like mice and keyboards); or they need to have an external power source such as an active powered hub or a directly powered transformer source. Like SCSI devices, sometimes USB devices do not get along with other USB devices and do not share ports or daisy chains nicely. This can cause the OS to fail to recognize the device on a plug and play basis, requiring one to have to either reboot or to disconnect and reconnect the device or to turn off the power to the device and then turn it back on for the system to recognize it. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply > These are USB devices, Tony. I was told by a so-called > computer guru that this problem was corrected in XP. It > could be that the device is incorrectly installed - it's a > USB 2 device but its speed, or slowness, indicated that Win > XP thinks it an early USB device. I've tried uninstalling > the USB controllers reinstalling them but to no avail. > > Jim > > Tony Sleep wrote: > >> On 02/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: >> >> >>> I have a 32-bit device on a >>> computer running Windows XP 32-bit that regularly fails to see one >>> device unless it's activated and the computer restarted - much like >>> the behavior that I experienced with Win 2K. >>> >>> >> >> That's normal and correct behaviour for SCSI. You can go into device >> manager and refresh the view instead, and it should be seen. Once >> seen, you can turn the device off and on at will, and won't have >> that problem again - until you reboot with the device powered off. >> >> Tony Sleep >> >> >> >> > > -- > -- > 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: large scanning project
Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Drivers already work with 32 bit systems. They are already > satisfied. I don't your point. Not all makes and models of peripheral have 32 bit drivers which work with all operating systems; some of the older peripherals may have had 32 bit drivers that were usable for Win 98 and Win ME but which would not work for Win 2000 or Win XP. Similarly, many of the 32 bit drivers that are supported buy Win XP may not be supported in Vista. It just might happen that the 32 bit drivers you have for your brand and model may be satisfactory and supported in Win XP; but that is not true for all printers or all 32 bit drivers. :-) Moreover, it also is not necessarily true that they will work with 32 bit Windows Vista. > I'm not so sure Nikon had created a x64 driver for anything yet. > Further the x64 drivers aren't for the popular market -- it's > really not needed for the popular market. So "when" are the > demands of the popular market met? the real answer is > "never" so does that mean we never get new drivers? Is there > always something for the popular market that takes > precedence? But yet specialty products are made. The point > is that these companies like Nikon reputations are built on > the specialty market and audiences -- the flagship (and high > margin, low > volume) products at the top drive a lot of sales at the > bottom (low margin, volume) and these product usually come > out first. Finally the needs of specialty market lead the > needs of the popular market. The specialty market get 64 bit > OS first, then the popular market follows later. If you meet > the specialty market needs, you will be ready to meet the > popular market needs when they finally get around to adopting > the advance. The 64 bit drivers are not for the popular market at this time, as you note; however, as more of the Fortune 500 and enterprise corporations adopt 64 bit systems into their networks, they will be the popular market and provide the motivating demand for 64 bit drivers even if most of the individual users may be still using 32 bit systems. What you suggest may happen in some realms; but it is not the case for printers, in particular, and scanners, secondarily. The specialty market and trend setters who make the demands which are the motivating influences in the case in question are the big enterprise users - not the individual users or the geeks. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> In all seriousness, your questions and comments may be more >> appropriate for Nikon which still exists and is still in the business >> of putting out digital printers, cameras, and scanners; but they are >> meaningless when it comes to KonicaMinolta who have for all practical >> purposes gotten out of the digital business of making and > selling scanners, and printers. >> > > Actually they still make and sell printers. They just got > out of the camera/photography/film/scanner markets. But, > yes, it is only Nikon who has the ability to redeem (or at > least try to) themselves. > >> As for the speed at which companies are developing and distributing >> 64 bit drivers, it depends on the demand for them; and obviously >> there are more 32 bit users who have 32 bit OSs and systems and are >> crying for and demanding 32 bit drivers. The companies are more >> focused on meeting the demands of their larger popular market before >> turning to the specialty markets and audiences. > > Drivers already work with 32 bit systems. They are already > satisfied. I don't your point. > > I'm not so sure Nikon had created a x64 driver for anything yet. > Further the x64 drivers aren't for the popular market -- it's > really not needed for the popular market. So "when" are the > demands of the popular market met? the real answer is > "never" so does that mean we never get new drivers? Is there > always something for the popular market that takes > precedence? But yet specialty products are made. The point > is that these companies like Nikon reputations are built on > the specialty market and audiences -- the flagship (and high > margin, low > volume) products at the top drive a lot of sales at the > bottom (low margin, volume) and these product usually come > out first. Finally the needs of specialty market lead the > needs of the popular market. The specialty market get 64 bit > OS first, then the popular market follows later. If you meet > the specialty market needs, you will be ready to meet the > popular market needs whe
[filmscanners] RE: large scanning project
Probably the latter. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > But how will they know what demand for these drivers is? Will > they poll their registered users? Or just count the > complaints until they get enough? > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: large scanning project
> Don't these companies understand how it damages their > relationship with their customers? Don't they know that an > important driver for sales in the photography and imaging > business is brand loyalty? They are just shooting themselves in the > foot. In all seriousness, your questions and comments may be more appropriate for Nikon which still exists and is still in the business of putting out digital printers, cameras, and scanners; but they are meaningless when it comes to KonicaMinolta who have for all practical purposes gotten out of the digital business of making and selling scanners, and printers. As for the speed at which companies are developing and distributing 64 bit drivers, it depends on the demand for them; and obviously there are more 32 bit users who have 32 bit OSs and systems and are crying for and demanding 32 bit drivers. The companies are more focused on meeting the demands of their larger popular market before turning to the specialty markets and audiences. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > Yes, Epson is being pro-active about it. I already have 64 > bit drivers for my Epson 7600 and R1800 printers (but not yet for my > 3200 scanner). > > And diminished regard for the manufacturer that fails to > support their product and keep it current is precisely the > result and underlines my point. I'm not sure I will ever buy > another Nikon or KonicaMinolta product (both my KM scanner > and KM printer are 64 bit driver-less). > Don't these companies understand how it damages their > relationship with their customers? Don't they know that an > important driver for sales in the photography and imaging > business is brand loyalty? They are just shooting themselves in the > foot. > > > James L. Sims wrote: >> I am in the same boat with my SprintScan 120 - Polaroid, apparently, >> has no plans to provide 64-bit drivers for their defunct line of >> scanners. >> >> On the other hand, a tech at Epson informed me that Epson will >> eventually provide 64-bit drivers for their product line, possibly >> back as far as their Stylus Photo 1200 printers. >> >> I will, therefore be forced to maintain a 32-bit box as long as I >> have an operational SprintScan 120. My high regard for Polaroid has >> been diminished. >> >> Jim Sims >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> Yes, KonicaMinolta scanner drivers and Nikon scanner drivers do >>> not work on XP Pro x64. >>> >>> I don't think I would ever say this about a MS product but x64 is >>> really good. It seems to me to be a big step forward from the >>> regular XP Pro. PS and just about everything runs faster. It is a >>> shame that both my Nikon LS-8000 and my KM Dimage Scan Elite 5400 >>> II do not work on it. For this is am quite annoyed and frustrated >>> with both Nikon and KM. What does it take to produce a new driver, >>> really, to keep your customers happy? Epson is split on this. >>> They have x64 drivers for many of their printers (7600 and R1800 >>> for example), but not on some of their scanners (I can't get one >>> for my Perfection 3200 Pro). >>> >>> Old WinXP drivers do not work in any circumstances with WinXP x64. >>> Some of the scanner control software works (Vuescan and KM's does, >>> Nikon Scan4 does not), but these are different than the device >>> driver. >>> >>> >>> gary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> To be completely clear, the Minolta drivers do not work on X64. I >>>> need to boot do XP. Thus I am stuck with a dual boot system. >>>> >>>> Microsoft has supplied a shockingly complete set of 64 bit drivers >>>> for old hardware, right on the X64 media (I guess it's a DVD, but I >>>> don't recall). However, this takes cooperation (I assume) from the >>>> manufacturer. >>>> >>>> I called Sony today and they are looking into X64 drivers. There >>>> are going to get back to me. ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Laurie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> A couple of points need to be made. >>>>> >>>>> First, there are differences between native drivers for 64 bit >>>>> operating systems and 32 bit operating systems. If you are running >>>>> X64, then it is probably dow
[filmscanners] RE: large scanning project
> Microsoft has supplied a shockingly complete set of 64 bit drivers for > old hardware, right on the X64 media (I guess it's a DVD, but I don't > recall). However, this takes cooperation (I assume) from the manufacturer. In point of fact, the software packaged inbox with the Microsoft operating systems on the CD are all developed by the hardware manufacturers in consultation with Microsoft; but they are not actually designed and written by Microsoft personnel. If the manufacturer is unwilling to redevelop drivers for older or existing hardware or is no longer in business, then there will be no new drivers, unless a third party decided to develop them or a software publisher as part of their software decided to design, develop, and include new drivers for the old or existing hardware that has old obsolete OEM drivers. In terms of priorities, 64 bit and 32 bit drivers for printers usually take priority over new drivers for digital cameras, which take priority over new drivers for scanners. Even 64 bit printer drivers are not available now and may not be available in the future for all makes and models of printer for use in either XP64 or Vista. Moreover, for those printers that will be getting new drivers the introduction of them may be a slow process based on demand. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > > To be completely clear, the Minolta drivers do not work on X64. I need > to boot do XP. Thus I am stuck with a dual boot system. > > Microsoft has supplied a shockingly complete set of 64 bit drivers for > old hardware, right on the X64 media (I guess it's a DVD, but I don't > recall). However, this takes cooperation (I assume) from the manufacturer. > > I called Sony today and they are looking into X64 drivers. There are > going to get back to me. ;-) > > > Laurie wrote: > > A couple of points need to be made. > > > > First, there are differences between native drivers for 64 bit operating > > systems and 32 bit operating systems. If you are running X64, then it is > > probably downgrading or reverting to 32 bit in order to use the 32 bit > > scanner drivers (I do not think that Minolta or any other scanner > > manufacturer has 64 bit drivers for their scanners) in order to use the > > existing drivers. > > > > Second, Vista when it is released will come in both 32 bit and 64 bit > > versions. The X64 will only be a forerunner to the 64 bit version of > Vista > > and not to the 32 bit version. > > > > Thirdly, it is entirely possible that Vista in all its versions may > switch > > from the current types of drivers for cameras and scanners used by the > older > > peripherals to a new type of driver, which was first introduced in > Windows > > XP and exists in XP side by side with the traditional type of driver but > > will not coexist with the traditional type of driver in Vista. > Microsoft > > may not supply new drivers for old peripherals so as to make them > compatible > > but may rely on the hardware manufacturers to supply the new drivers for > > their peripherals which will be compatible with those used in Vista. In > > this case, users will be out of luck if the manufacturer does not > furnish > > the new type of driver for their hardware or if the manufacturer goes > out of > > business. > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:28 AM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > >> > >>I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use my 5400 > >>II. Dual booting is never a good solution. Math processing really moves > >>on an AMD64 when in 64 bit mode, so the software will really benefit > >>from going to Vista. > >> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>>It may not be clear, but they are certainly no longer making or selling > >>>scanners. The Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II are now exceptionally rare and > >>>if you can get one for a "very good price", buy it. Also I am looking > >>>for one, so if you could tell me where you found some, I would much > >>>appreciate it. > >>> > >>>The Scan Elite 5400 II is really a very good scanner for 35mm film. > It > >>>provides better and faster results than my Nikon 8000. I didn't think > >>>about the dri
[filmscanners] RE: large scanning project
A couple of points need to be made. First, there are differences between native drivers for 64 bit operating systems and 32 bit operating systems. If you are running X64, then it is probably downgrading or reverting to 32 bit in order to use the 32 bit scanner drivers (I do not think that Minolta or any other scanner manufacturer has 64 bit drivers for their scanners) in order to use the existing drivers. Second, Vista when it is released will come in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The X64 will only be a forerunner to the 64 bit version of Vista and not to the 32 bit version. Thirdly, it is entirely possible that Vista in all its versions may switch from the current types of drivers for cameras and scanners used by the older peripherals to a new type of driver, which was first introduced in Windows XP and exists in XP side by side with the traditional type of driver but will not coexist with the traditional type of driver in Vista. Microsoft may not supply new drivers for old peripherals so as to make them compatible but may rely on the hardware manufacturers to supply the new drivers for their peripherals which will be compatible with those used in Vista. In this case, users will be out of luck if the manufacturer does not furnish the new type of driver for their hardware or if the manufacturer goes out of business. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project > > I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use my 5400 > II. Dual booting is never a good solution. Math processing really moves > on an AMD64 when in 64 bit mode, so the software will really benefit > from going to Vista. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It may not be clear, but they are certainly no longer making or selling > > scanners. The Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II are now exceptionally rare and > > if you can get one for a "very good price", buy it. Also I am looking > > for one, so if you could tell me where you found some, I would much > > appreciate it. > > > > The Scan Elite 5400 II is really a very good scanner for 35mm film. It > > provides better and faster results than my Nikon 8000. I didn't think > > about the driver issue with Vista. But then again, everyone isn't going > > to be rushing out to get Vista as soon as it appears. XP will still be > > a viable OS for several years to come, giving the scanner a long enough > > life span. > > > > -- > -- > 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: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display
Actually, he is wanting to make desktop wall paper for his wife; but he and his wife want the wallpaper image to be as crisp, sharp, and clear as a high resolution and quality monitor displayed image as contrasted to the lower resolution and quality typical wallpaper images. So you initial understanding was correct and the points you made about resolution and aspect ratio are good points. In part, this is what I was suggesting when I raised my questions about what was meant by "resizing" and how it was being done as a preliminary issue to the actual sharpening issues. So you need not slink off into the corner with tail between your legs but rather stand tall and proud. :-) Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlisle Landel Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display > Duh-oh! Wait. I *do* misunderstand the problem. You aren't > making wallpaper, you want the best image. > > OK, forget everything I just said. > > Sorry about that. > > Slinking off into the corner now, tail between legs, > > Carlisle > > > On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Carlisle Landel wrote: > >> What techniques do list members use to resize/sharpen screen display images and what USM etc values seem best? I'm determined to produce an image which my wife actually feels does the original justice >> >> Are you sure the "sharpness" issue isn't simply one of having the >> proper resolution and aspect ratio? >> >> Usually, if your digital image is of sufficient resolution, then, >> given the proper aspect ratio and/or how you ask the computer to >> display the image, it will be nice and sharp. >> >> I'm a Mac driver, so I'm somewhat unclear on the details for making a >> Windows desktop wallpaper image. Nonetheless, I've got a friend >> with a windows box who wanted a photo converted to wallpaper. As it >> was displayed, it was a mess (it was a photo of a person), fuzzy and >> distorted. I re-scanned the photo at higher resolution and then >> saved it as wallpaper. That cleared up the fuzziness. It was still >> distorted because the display resolution wasn't set to a pixel count >> appropriate for the screen size. Thus the image was stretched in one >> dimension in order to fit the screen. I had to futz around with the >> screen resolution until I got it to display correctly (Macs handle >> this much better--well, ok they handle most things better), but I >> eventually figured it out. Problem solved. >> >> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your problem. >> >> Good luck, >> >> Carlisle >> >> > -- >> -- >> 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display
I have been staying quite and following the thread and holding my tongue to see what others might suggest. However, it appears that everyone has neglected the questions dealing with resizing and focused on sharpening. So I guess I have to jump in and ask the difficult primary questions. First, what do you mean by "resizing" and how are you doing this "resizing?" By "resizing." are you referring to changing the resolution via interpolation methods or keeping the actual original resolutions while increasing or decreasing the lineal dimensions of the image? Second, are you increasing the resolution form the original resolution and from what to what; or are you decreasing the original resolution and from what to what? Third, if you are increasing or decreasing the original lineal dimensions from the original dimensions without changing the original actual resolutions, how are you doing this - by what method in what program? If you are merely changing the lineal dimensions of the image to a new size (namely, scaling the image) without making changes to the actual original resolutions of the image, you will be changing the effective resolution. Increasing the size will result in an effective proportional decrease in the resolution, while decreasing the image scale will result in an effective proportional increase in the resolution. This change in resolution may not be readily known since the effective ppi will change but the actual total number of pixels may not change; they are either just more concentrated or spread out. Should the effective ppi be reduced to 100 ppi or less, the quality and sharpness of the display will be effected, becoming softer in nature and involving fewer pixels to sharpen. Thus, one may need to take this into account when choosing and applying sharpening methods. Most sharpening methods rely on hard straight edges so that nature of the image in question as well as the amount of resolution that it has will impact on the quality of one's sharpening results. If one is engaging in actually changing the resolutions by means of interpolation, then one needs to be aware that different interpolation methods may effect the quality of the image. However, here again, resolutions of 100 ppi or less along with the nature of the image in question will limit the degree of quality sharpening that one can do. Having said that, the issue of sharpening per se can be addressed more accurately. If you are comparing the sharpness of the image on the monitor versus the sharpness of the image when printed on paper, you may find a natural discrepancy between them since the brightness and contrast of the monitor as well as the nature of the type of monitor display will bear on the apparent sharpness that one sees. This also will be effected by the nature of the image along with the low resolutions of most screen displays as compared to their printed versions. Among the various techniques of sharpening other than single-step global sharpening are incremental global sharpening, single-step local sharpening, and incremental local sharpening. All sharpening should be done while viewing a preview display set at 100% of various locations in the overall image in the case of global sharpening or of various locations in the area being sharpened in the case of local sharpening. One can use any one of a variety of sharpening methods (i.e., USM, edge sharpening, LAB Color sharpening, Pixel Genius' Photokit Sharpener, or the like) when employing any of the above mentioned techniques. Typically with USM method, one uses a low threshold of 1-2 and small radius of 1-3 with the actual numbers depending on the type of image. The amount of sharpening depends on how the image appears and on the nature and type of image in question. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display > I know this has been asked before so my apologies for going over old > ground! > > When I scan my wife's slides, she normally likes a resized > version for use as desktop wallpaper. My problem is that, > after I resize the images in Photoshop, they either don't > look sharp enough or I manage to oversharpen them and make > them look unnatural. I have tried both USM and the high-pass > filter but just can't get it looking right! The originals > are detailed enough - its just my poor technique. (I'm no > better at resizing my digicam images for the screen.) > > What techniques do list members use to resize/sharpen screen > display images and what USM etc values seem best? I'm > determined to produce an image which my wife actually feels > does the original justice > > > TIA, > > > Al > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsub
[filmscanners] RE: Using high res digital camera for scanning/duplicating
> if the result was high quality digital scans at the rate of a > roll every few minutes instead of a roll per hour. I doubt that this is possible with digital cameras even if they used a very large flash cards for memory to contain a large number of high quality camera raw or TIFF files since not only are digital camera's slower than film cameras so as to present obstacles to high speed photography but one will need to change the subject film frames between shots, which takes time and often requires some adjustments for each slide. I do think that one could probably duplicate or digitalize a roll of film using a digital camera at a rate of less than 1 roll per hour; but I doubt if one can duplicate or digitalize a roll every few minutes - especially if the roll consisted of separate individual slides or film frames or even 4-6 frame film strips. In the case of the 4-6 frame film strips, you would have to change the film strips from one strip to the next frequently which will take time. The only time I could see that happening would be if the entire roll was in a single strip uncut and feed through a slide duping setup automatically with only minor variations in the film frames requiring only minor camera adjustments from frame to frame in the strip; however, like the film scanner, even this would probably feed the film slowly as is currently the case with strip feed film scanners. This is my take on this particular item; however, the others have raised some good points and interesting considerations with respect to other issues and points. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Using high res digital camera for scanning/duplicating > Glad to see you are still active on this list Laurie. > > You raise some very good points. > Some I have considered, others I have not. > > I think I would be willing to implement all of the things you > mentioned: filters, special lighting, copy stand, filmholders, etc, if > the result was high quality digital scans at the rate of a > roll every few minutes instead of a roll per hour. I am > certainly more concerned with time than cost. But the > software for converting the negatives may be a serious issue. > > Thank you for your input. > > Bob Kehl > ImagesByKehl.com > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:26 PM > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Using high res digital camera for > scanning/duplicating > > > Your questions tend to ignore some other key issues. Even if > the resolutions and quality of digital cameras have improved > to the point of competing with flatbed scanners or even film > scanners when it comes to the results or even if one uses > high quality flat field normal and/or macro duplicating > lenses, one has to deal with issues of maintaining the film > in a flat state without curl or bowing, flat and even color > corrected lighting of the film, and finding software that > will be able to both reverse and account for the orange > masking on color negative film without causing unwanted color casts > and shifting. > > Of equal importance, one would have to establish and utilize > a traditional copy stand setup to keep the camera stable and > without shake for longer exposures at the proper distances > given the lighting and light levels being used as well as > allowing for the use of filters over the lights for purposes > of softening the lighting as well as polarizing the lighting > and correcting it for color temperature, depending on the > nature of the subject film being rephotographed if one is to > seriously engage in using a digital camera to digitalize > films. One might also find a need to utilize filters over > the lens of the digital camera to account for variances in > the color characteristics of the films in question with > respect to the types of camera sensors being used. > > I have not used Vuescan in a while and have not kept up with > all the updates of the software; but I have to wonder if it > can be used to color correct and account for the orange > masking of color negatives when used with camera raw files > generated by the higher quality digital cameras. I have the > feeling that one would have to convert the camera raw files > to standard file formats like TIFF and JPEG before one could > engage in any post production image editing and correction using > Vuescan. > > Original Message > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:49 AM > To: [EMAIL
[filmscanners] RE: Using high res digital camera for scanning/duplicating
Your questions tend to ignore some other key issues. Even if the resolutions and quality of digital cameras have improved to the point of competing with flatbed scanners or even film scanners when it comes to the results or even if one uses high quality flat field normal and/or macro duplicating lenses, one has to deal with issues of maintaining the film in a flat state without curl or bowing, flat and even color corrected lighting of the film, and finding software that will be able to both reverse and account for the orange masking on color negative film without causing unwanted color casts and shifting. Of equal importance, one would have to establish and utilize a traditional copy stand setup to keep the camera stable and without shake for longer exposures at the proper distances given the lighting and light levels being used as well as allowing for the use of filters over the lights for purposes of softening the lighting as well as polarizing the lighting and correcting it for color temperature, depending on the nature of the subject film being rephotographed if one is to seriously engage in using a digital camera to digitalize films. One might also find a need to utilize filters over the lens of the digital camera to account for variances in the color characteristics of the films in question with respect to the types of camera sensors being used. I have not used Vuescan in a while and have not kept up with all the updates of the software; but I have to wonder if it can be used to color correct and account for the orange masking of color negatives when used with camera raw files generated by the higher quality digital cameras. I have the feeling that one would have to convert the camera raw files to standard file formats like TIFF and JPEG before one could engage in any post production image editing and correction using Vuescan. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Using high res digital camera for scanning/duplicating > Is the technology to the point yet where we could use a high > quality duplicating lens and a high resolution digital camera > (Canon/Nikon 12-16mp) to digitize slides and negatives. > What would the potential pitfalls be? > Would Vuescan work to color correct the negatives? > > Forgive me is this subject has already been discussed to > death. I've been away from the list for a few years. > If has already been addressed someone please direct me to the > archives. > > Thanks > > Bob Kehl > ImagesByKehl.com > online for four years - thanks to this group > > -- > -- > 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: question about scanning and color profiles
> I would consider that if someone (Laurie?) were to take the > position that I wouldn't get equal quality from any > (inexpensive, used) flatbed scanner working directly with the > negative. I am not sure why you brought me into this by name or why you are putting words in my mouth; but I will say that scanning 8 x 10 negatives on a flat bed scanner, even at an optical 600 ppi (although most flatbeds these days scan at an optical 1200 ppi, which is even better) should not present any problem with respect to resolutions and sharpness even if the images were to be enlarged to 30 x 36 without employing extensive interpolation. The other quality factors would depend to a large degree on the quality of the inexpensive used flatbed scanner. Factors such as how much bit depth the scanner has, the quality and condition of the sensors and glass, how much dirt and dust has accumulated inside the scanner, and if the scanner emits stray light are all important hardware concerns. However, there are also scanner software factors which deserve attention since they also can be limiting factors on the final outputs' quality. However, inkjet printing of the scans is an entirely different matter from scanning them, since inkjet printing has its own limitations and potential quality issues. But, you have me confused with your current post. I do not understand why you even speak of contact printing the negatives which you will then scan in order to inkjet print the digital file generated by the contact print. Why not just scan the negative themselves and reverse and inkjet print directly from those resulting digital files? The first alternative introduces an intervening stage in the process which opens the process up for more possible problems and limitations. For example, as you hint at, any contact print of even photographic prints are more restricted in their contrast range than the film is; often the scanner can capture a significant amount of film's contrast range beyond that of the print, which means that if you go the contact print route you will be losing information, which you might otherwise be able to capture. Having said all this, now why was it that you dropped my name? Don't get me wrong, I am flattered to be mentioned in the same post as Ed Weston. :-) Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of BRAD DAVIS Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: question about scanning and color profiles > Hi, > > I've asked this before and then been side tracked. > > I'm still looking for a flatbed scanner that I can use for my > 8X10 B&W negatives. I have something between 300 and 500 to > scan and then I will never need that functionality again > (sold the 8X10 camera about 7 years ago after not using it > for a decade) - there won't be anymore. > > I've considered contact printing them in the kitchen > (imitating Ed Weston with his frame and a 25 watt bulb > hanging from the ceiling). I've done that and can get very > good quality from such a print process. > > I would consider that if someone (Laurie?) were to take the > position that I wouldn't get equal quality from any > (inexpensive, used) flatbed scanner working directly with the > negative. I'm not dying to set up even a temporary darkroom > though, much as I miss the smell of hypo. If that, contact > printing, along with my Epson Expression 800 is really a good > solution, let me know that. But, if there is a better > (reasonably priced) solution that I might find on eBay, I > would like to know what that might be. > > If the suggestion is to contact print the negs, then, are > there any suggestions as to how to set up the contrast? - I > doubt that making my usual somewhat contrasty print with deep > blacks is the best way to go if I know that I am going to scan the > result. > > > Thanks. > > Bradford > > > -- > -- > 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: Flatbed for prints only
I think that these days you will probably find that all the flatbeds offer some form of film scanning capability since the cost differential between offering it and not offering it is minimal and the inclusion is a big selling point for most potential amateur and hobbyist buyers - especially with the slow dying of the scanner market and the turn toward cheap digital cameras and inkjet printers that are attracting the man-in-the street. For most flatbed print scanning, an optical resolution of 1200ppi for a letter size scan is probably more than enough resolution since prints do not have all that much of a contrast range or a detail information beyond 300 dpi. You might be better off looking for a flatbed that has as high a bit depth as you can get and not get caught up in optical resolutions above 1200 ppi, since the higher optical resolutions are only required when you are scanning 35mm or medium format film frames and want to enlarge them into 8x10 or 11 x 14 or larger print sizes with as little interpolation as possible. This is usually not the problem when scanning prints. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Flatbed for prints only > > Hi, > > Most of the posts here are for film scanners, but I thought > I'd ask for your opinion on a flatbad. > > I have a Umax Astra 2100U flatbed (circa 1999), that is a bit > too slow. It's a USB 1.1 mdoel. The scan quality could > probably stand improvement. > > Can anyone recommend a flatbed, which produces good print > scans, but does not necessarily have a film attachment. This > I hope would lower the price as well. I was hoping to find a > flatbad for around $100. > Format no bigger than std 8.5x11 or A4 (or close to it). > > Most flatbed reviews I read, lean on the film scan > evaluation. I do not care about that at all. For film, I'd > use a dedicated scanner. > > I read about Epson Perfection 4990, and it seems a good > candidate, but again it has film scanning which I do not > need. The cheaper scanners do not get reviews at all. > > Regards, > > Rich > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/205 - Release > Date: 12/16/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/205 - Release Date: 12/16/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has > nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and > everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming > light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a > reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of > the image (non image-forming light hitting the unexposed > parts of the CCD/CMOS). I beg your pardon. Are you saying that the light shinning through the uncovered portions of the glass scanner bed does not tend to bounce off the flatbed bed cover and scatter so as to create the backscatter you are speaking of? If it does, which I have always been told was the reason why one should mask the uncovered portions of the bed, then it does have something to do with the problem and the reason why an anti reflective coating might be used in large commercial grade flatbed scanners. I never said that it was the only reason or factor and agree that there may be many such factors. But I think that your articulation is a little extreme. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 2:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has > nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and > everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming > light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a > reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of > the image (non image-forming light hitting the unexposed > parts of the CCD/CMOS). Any time you have light passing > across a glass-air surface you will improve image quality > (particularly contrast) by AR coating the glass. > > Mr. Bill > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 8/7/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are > scanners that can do it I will take your word for it; but according to my understanding, the optical resolution has little to do with the distance between the lens and the sensor and more to do with the size and capacity of the sensor. The effective resolution may change with the changes in the distances between the lens and the sensor; but the actual native hardware optical resolution remains the same. But I could be wrong in my understanding; I am not an engineer. > If the resolution is variable and the scanner can achieve > 2,400ppi over a 1" wide path, then it will achieve 480ppi > over a 5" path (2,400ppi/5in = 480ppi simple arithmetic). > > You can set up a simple ratio if the original strip is > something other than 1"... > > Original Resolution New Resolution > ___ = ___ > Original Scan Width New Scan Width What? I do not come out with that using your formula. Original Resolution of 2400 with an original scan width of 1" versus New Resolution of X with a scan width of 5 inches gives me a New Resolution of 2400 x 5 or 12000 ppi/dpi using your formula. The only way I could get what you got is to divide the Original Resolution by the New Scan Width to get the New Resolution which is not what your equation says. However, if the scanner does have variable native hardware optical resolutions, the 2400 ppi/dpi tells us about the film native optical resolution and not the native optical resolution for reflective print scans (i.e., if it is the same or different). Thus we do not know if the scan width should be applied to the native optical resolution for film scans versus that for prints. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 2:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are > scanners that can do it (they have to be able to change the > distance between the lens and CCD (CMOS) to change the > resolution, then be able to move the Lens-CCD assembly into > the new focus position. Needless to say, this generally is > in the realm of higher-end scanners. > > If the resolution is variable and the scanner can achieve > 2,400ppi over a 1" wide path, then it will achieve 480ppi > over a 5" path (2,400ppi/5in = 480ppi simple arithmetic). > > You can set up a simple ratio if the original strip is > something other than 1"... > > Original Resolution New Resolution > ___ = ___ > Original Scan Width New Scan Width > > Fill in what you know and solve for what you don't. It works > every time, IF the scanner has variable resolution (many > don't). Remember, you can never exceed the maximum optical > resolution of the scanner. > > Mr. Bill > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 > > ppi/dpi scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native > > resolution scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 > > ppi/dpi independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 > > ppi/dpi). For the size print that the original poster > mentioned which > > was smaller ( but I forget the exact size but I think it > may have been > > either a 3.5 x 5 or a > > 4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range > of about > > 150 ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. > > > > But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have > variable > > native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my > knowledge and > > understanding, scanners have a single native optical > resolution. The > > effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number > of inches > > that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an > > enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will > > result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the > > image size without such sampling will result in a higher > effective resolution. > > > > Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the > > native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or > not; and if > > not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is > 2400 ppi/dpi > > or something else that would produce an effective native > resolution of > > 2400 ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to > > some other horizontal length. > > -
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native resolution scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 ppi/dpi independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 ppi/dpi). For the size print that the original poster mentioned which was smaller ( but I forget the exact size but I think it may have been either a 3.5 x 5 or a 4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range of about 150 ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have variable native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, scanners have a single native optical resolution. The effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number of inches that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the image size without such sampling will result in a higher effective resolution. Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or not; and if not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is 2400 ppi/dpi or something else that would produce an effective native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to some other horizontal length. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > The native optical resolution of this scanner varies > dependent upon the size of the image being scanned. In the > case of 35mm film, which is just under 1" wide, the scanner > sensor/CCD scans at 2400 ppi/dpi. > However, when switched to reflective mode, the scanner can > scan up to 5 x 7" prints (I previously incorrectly noted > 4x6"). In this mode the maximum is 300 ppi/dpi (although the > math implies it could scan up to about 450 ppi/dpi) but who > knows what kind of optical light path bending they had to do to > accomplish that. > > Art > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from >> its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If >> the native optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions >> are all interpolations, that might account for the reason that the >> 150 is sharper than the 300 dpi. Moreover, the screen resolution >> might also enter into the equation since the screen rendering of the >> image will be such as to make the 300 dpi scan be rendered on the >> monitor at twice the size as the 150 dpi scan which can result it >> some apparent fuzziness with the smaller rendering appearing sharper >> even at lower resolutions. >> >> The standard rule of thumb sage advice is to scan at the scanners >> optical resolution and not at an interpolated resolution to get the >> maximum sharpness and the minimum flaws, artifacts, and noise. >> >> But you have me a little confused. You speak of scanning a 3x5 >> print; but then you say you also had this negative roll scanned at >> Target. Are we talking about positive paper prints or film >> negatives? They are two very different things. >> >> Unless you will be enlarging a hard copy print to a print size larger >> then the original or a portion of a cropped print to the size of the >> entire original print or larger, a 300 dpi is sufficient since hard >> copy prints typically do not yield resolutions greater then 300 dpi >> since the information is not there in the original to support a >> higher resolution with actual original data. To scan 35mm film, one >> will normally scan it at a resolution of around 4000 dpi since the >> frames will typically be enlarged to at least 3.5 X so as to produce >> a 3.5 X 5 image at around 300 dpi. A 1200 dpi scan of a 35mm film >> frame is a relatively low resolution to be scanning 35mm at and >> would require interpolation in the event that one wanted to enlarge >> the image in its entirety or in part. Thus, Target is really not >> doing any better than your machine would do on a 35mm film frame. >> Moreover, we do not know if the 1200 dpi that Target scans at is >> real optical > resolution or interpolated resolution. >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol >>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:01 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: [filmscanners] Re:
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Without trying to question or second guess the Schneider guy, I suspect that the reason for the recommendation without reservations was because he was referring to Schneider lenses and they unlike some of the cheaper prosumer lenses may not put their multicoatings on the outside surface of the lens or lens elements where they can get scratched or effected by strong chemical solutions. Some of the coatings may very well be sandwiched between layers of glass in the lens or lens element so as to be protected from direct contact with anything including cleaning solutions. Cheaper lenses and other optics may put the coatings on the front of the optics, the lens or lens element as if the coating was merely painted on, although I suspect that they are actually baked on to the surface in some manner, which may leave then susceptible to damage from liquids and scratching. Since many scanners use internal front surface mirrors, their reflective surfaces are open to easy damage from scratching and chemical solutions as might be the various coated optics that are used to focus the light on the sensor, since typically the assumption is that the optics are internal to the scanner and not user accessible thus in no need of more elaborate treatment as might be the case for camera lenses whose front elements and often rear elements are accessible to users. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > I was surprised, but the Schneider guy recommended the dilute > Windex solution without any reservations. > > Mr. Bill > > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia >> and water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces... > > -- > -- > 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: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia and water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces, on mirrored surfaces, and on flatbed scanner glass would depend (a) on if the surface is coated or not and (b), if it is coated, on what the coating is that is being used. Many modern lenses tend to be multicoated while older lenses were not, some flatbed scanner glass is coated while many flatbed scanners do not use any sort of coating on the flatbed glass, and some front surface mirrors tend to be more vulnerable than back surfaced mirrors. Moreover certain types of coatings may be more vulnerable to deterioration from ammonia than others. I know that eye glasses with anti-glare coatings on the lenses tend to be negatively effected by ammonia based glass and/or plastic cleaners, which eats away at the coatings; but some anti-UV coatings used on UV protected glass is unharmed by ammonia solutions. Some of the color correction multicoated lenses seem to have coatings on the glass lens elements that are less effected or not effected at all by ammonia solutions, while plastic lens components with the same coatings may be. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > This was the head of Schneider Optics USA service. > > Mr. Bill > > P.S. The original question was to confirm a Schneider > recommendation that I had heard of a 50/50 mix of sudsy > ammonia and hydrogen peroxide for cleaning lenses. They told > me that this would be good for cutting fungus or something > very oily, but recommended the 50/50 Windex mix for every day > use. Oddly enough, at Scitex, we recommended avoiding > ammonia based cleaners as we felt they would strip the > anti-reflection coating off the flatbed glass on our scanners. > > > Mike Kersenbrock wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >>> Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing >>> he recommends for cleaning lenses. >>> >>> >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If the native optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions are all interpolations, that might account for the reason that the 150 is sharper than the 300 dpi. Moreover, the screen resolution might also enter into the equation since the screen rendering of the image will be such as to make the 300 dpi scan be rendered on the monitor at twice the size as the 150 dpi scan which can result it some apparent fuzziness with the smaller rendering appearing sharper even at lower resolutions. The standard rule of thumb sage advice is to scan at the scanners optical resolution and not at an interpolated resolution to get the maximum sharpness and the minimum flaws, artifacts, and noise. But you have me a little confused. You speak of scanning a 3x5 print; but then you say you also had this negative roll scanned at Target. Are we talking about positive paper prints or film negatives? They are two very different things. Unless you will be enlarging a hard copy print to a print size larger then the original or a portion of a cropped print to the size of the entire original print or larger, a 300 dpi is sufficient since hard copy prints typically do not yield resolutions greater then 300 dpi since the information is not there in the original to support a higher resolution with actual original data. To scan 35mm film, one will normally scan it at a resolution of around 4000 dpi since the frames will typically be enlarged to at least 3.5 X so as to produce a 3.5 X 5 image at around 300 dpi. A 1200 dpi scan of a 35mm film frame is a relatively low resolution to be scanning 35mm at and would require interpolation in the event that one wanted to enlarge the image in its entirety or in part. Thus, Target is really not doing any better than your machine would do on a 35mm film frame. Moreover, we do not know if the 1200 dpi that Target scans at is real optical resolution or interpolated resolution. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than > 300 dpi when > > scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the > result you > > speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print > > At this point I'm just looking at the results on a 19inch monitor. > Used the HP software to scan with. > > I also had this negative roll scanned at Target, for comparison. > Target offers 1200dpi scans for about $4/roll. They just > started this service and are still somewhat sloppy with film handling. > > Rich > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release > Date: 8/4/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I am unfamiliar with the scanner. I assumed that since you said it scanned prints it was a flatbed type of scanner. I do understand your concerns and reservations. You might be able to get a repair diagram or other schema of the unit from HP that will tell you how to take the unit apart and where the parts are and go. > I do not want to waste much > time doing test scans, if the optics are fuzzy from several > years of oil film. Of course, you will not know if the optics are dirty or not unless you take the unit apart and take a look. I am going to assume that the optics are not coated with any sort of film or oil so as to diffuse the scan or the results would be noticeable at all resolutions; I also assume that there is not dust on the mirror or optics or that would be obvious on all scans at all resolutions. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Hi Laurie, > > On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the > internal optics, > > mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears > > sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it > > that this is a flatbed scanner. > > This is small boxy print/slide/negative scanner. > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/s20.html > > Except mine is an earlier version, but looks exactly the same. > > > I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. > > None of the obvious cleaning surfaces are accessible without > taking the thing apart. Just wondered if anyone has done it > on this unit and if there's spring waiting to go "boing", > when you remove the cover :-) > > I asked about cleaning, because I do not want to waste much > time doing test scans, if the optics are fuzzy from several > years of oil film. > > Regards, > > Rich Koziol > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release > Date: 8/4/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it > on optics. I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my suggestion of Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed scanner, saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the innards of the scanner, and following it with the statement: > >As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the > >surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful > >about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue > >over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal > >parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. > Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for > optics. I am unfamiliar with electronics grade alcohol; how does it differ from denatured alcohol? I understand why one might not want to use rubbing alcohol' but is denatured alcohol the same as electronic grade? >I use cottonballs rather than cloth. I suppose they could work just as well as long as they do not leave behind any form of lint or cotton strings or dust. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lists > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it > on optics. > Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for > optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > >I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the > internal optics, > >mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears > >sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I > take it that > >this is a flatbed scanner. > > > >I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You > should start > >by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little > >Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass > >and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, > >you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the > surfaces of > >the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be > >careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not > >leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, > don't contain > >anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage > >the electronic components and elements. > > > >As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than > 300 dpi when > >scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you > >speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the > >latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this > >could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. > > > >Original Message > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions > > > > > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got into > >>scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film Scanners > woke me up > >>:-) I have one that's at the bottom of that heap. It's HP > PhotoSmart > >>vintage 1997. SCSI interface, which makes it S10 I guess. > >> > >>I'm using the current version of HP software from their > Support site. > >>Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is gone). The > >>scanner was donated by a friend. > >> > >>Now the question. I started with a simple color print > (3x5) scan and > >>noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" > >>result than 300dpi. > >> > >>Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, > same results. > >> > >>Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to clean any > >>optical components? I'm quite handy with small tools :-) After > >>sitting for so many years and some usage by the previous owner, it > >>must have some film whatever the optical pickup is. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Rich Koziol > >> > >>--
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that this is a flatbed scanner. I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions > Hi, > > Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got > into scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film > Scanners woke me up :-) I have one that's at the bottom of > that heap. It's HP PhotoSmart vintage 1997. SCSI interface, > which makes it S10 I guess. > > I'm using the current version of HP software from their Support site. > Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is > gone). The scanner was donated by a friend. > > Now the question. I started with a simple color print (3x5) > scan and noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" > result than 300dpi. > > Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, same results. > > Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to > clean any optical components? I'm quite handy with small > tools :-) After sitting for so many years and some usage by > the previous owner, it must have some film whatever the > optical pickup is. > > Regards, > > Rich Koziol > > -- > -- > 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: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
Hi Jack, Without arguing the points you make, most of us who responded that Digital Ice does not work well with Kodachromes did qualify our statements and avoided making any absolute statements. However, the real question (even if Digital Ice works on many Kodachromes), given the original poster's message in which he said he wanted to batch process around a thousand or so Kodachromes with little description as to the colors on those slides or the evenness of quality of those slides, is will your workflow as described be an efficient route to go for large numbers of slides as opposed to a few at a time. I would think that (a) scanning 1000 slides with Digital Ice would take quite a bit of time in itself and (b) needing to scan some twice in addition to working on them in Photoshop could make the project a life-long endeavor. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Phipps > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations > > Actually, Digital ICE works quite well with most Kodachrome film. > There are certain images that are troublesome. Certain > batches of film with a lot of cyan are the most serious > cuprites. For example I scanned an image of a man wearing a > dark navy colored cap. Of course there was a high density of > cyan in the cap. Unfortunately the cap had yellow lettering > on it. The yellow lettering was the only part of the image > that was affected when correcting the image using the > infrared defect map. It was also unfortunate that the image > was covered with many fine scratches and other very visible > surface defects. The fastest way to solve the problem was to > scan the image twice and "bring back" the lettering on the > cap with a layer mask in an image editor. The lettering on > the cap was an important part of the image otherwise I would > have left it alone. > > My workflow is to scan Kodachrome with Digital ICE on. If I > notice artifacts around high densities of cyan, rescan with > Digital ICE off. > If there are a lot of defects, I combine the two (or I go > down the hall and use a Nikon 9000). If there is any fading > or color imbalance, then I apply Digital ROC. > > The other choice is to purchase a new Nikon 9000 that does > scan Kodachrome quite effectively. However, I don't think > that the Nikon 9000 meets the requirement of inexpensive. The > Nikon 5000 and the Nikon V also perform better with > Kodachrome than the older models but not as well at the 9000. > > Jack Phipps > Kodak's Austin Development Center > Formerly, Applied Science Fiction > > On 7/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >My only suggestion is that whatever you do, you should > do it with > > > >Digital ICE enabled. You will want to use the scans as > is and not > > > >screw around trying to remove dust from the images (other > > > than a couple > > > >blasts from your Dust Off before you scan). > > > > > > > > > > > Except that theoretically Digital ICE doesn't work with > Kodachrome > > > (although some have reported it working ). Image apparently not > > > fully transparent in the IR channel. > > > > Polaroid Dust & Scratch Removal. > > > > http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > > > > -- > > -- 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 > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.3/56 - Release Date: > 7/22/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.3/56 - Release Date: 7/22/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
But the poster says clearly that the slides are mostly Kodachromes ("I
have a collection of around 2500 slides, mostly Kodachrome"). Digital
Ice does not work very well if at all with Kodachromes. Digital ICE
relies on infrared to identify scratches and dust; but infrared does not
see through silver halide emulsions very well, so it does not work with
B&W or Kodachromes which use silver halide emulsions.
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
> My only suggestion is that whatever you do, you should do it
> with Digital ICE enabled. You will want to use the scans as
> is and not screw around trying to remove dust from the images
> (other than a couple blasts from your Dust Off before you scan).
>
> Berry
>
>
> On 7/19/05 6:06 AM, "Simon Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have been recommended this list after posting a question on the
>> yahoo D70 mailing list, so hope you can help...
>>
>> I have a collection of around 2500 slides, mostly Kodachrome (and a
>> handful .
> .
> .
> .that this will be a very onerous task taking me a few years to
>> complete, but the good side is that the slides aren't getting any
>> more numerous so an end is always in sight!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Simon
>>> From sunny/wet Bolton.
>>
>>
>>
> --
>>
>> --
>> 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
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
[filmscanners] RE: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
> My point being that if you took the time to remount your > slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. True, but the curvature of film is not always due to the mounting but can be due to a number of other factors. > No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. Also true, but performance of either or any scanner can be improved and in some cases even remedied where the curvature is slight by being able to switch from autofocus the uses the center of the film to manual focus where you can define the target area of the film so as make some sort of adjustment for any curvature toward the edges of the film. My point and the point of the discussion was not to suggest a workflow that will minimize the effects of out-of-focus film edges but to note in a comparative evaluation of the two scanners the features that each has or lacks. > If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special > curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard > mounts. Scanners don't use them. That lens was not specifically for cardboard mounted film but for any film in any glassless mount that may pop as a result of projector heat. It did not work on all instances of warping and even caused other unwanted distortions. > Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've > discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple > procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) > will cure the problem. That procedure is not the cure for the problem; but it is a possible remedy for some instances of the problem but not all since there are many causes for warping of film. A more effective solution with some film scanners that have film holders that use a thin clear plastic or glass sandwich that encompasses the film chip and holds it flat; but those sorts of film holders are not available for all film scanners. Even when they are available, they create problems of their own (e.g., dirt and fingerprint collection on the four sides of the glass or plastic, Newton's Rings, and scratches on the plastic or glass surfaces. > Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement > that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning > (not on these two scanners, though). What is the point of mentioning something that is inappropriate to the two film scanners in question; moreover, that was not the point of the original post or the replies which was to compare the two film scanners as hardware devices primarily and their scanning software secondarily. It was not a discussion of scanning workflows and techniques, which one can carry out independent of any mention of particular scanners. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? > I am addressing your comments, directly... > > My point being that if you took the time to remount your > slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner. > > No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. > > What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the > equipment you own or the easiest scan. You can't have both. > > If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special > curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard > mounts. Scanners don't use them. > > Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've > discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple > procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) > will cure the problem. > > Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement > that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning > (not on these two scanners, though). > > Mr. Bill > > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and >> are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your >> remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, >> no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the >> edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on >> these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture >> which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my >> point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still >> holds. > > -- > -- > 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: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and are not attempting to address the comments in my post with your remark. Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, no amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of professional scanners, my point about the comparative assessment of the two scanners still holds. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? > The truth is you shouldn't be trying to scan slides in their > original cardboard mounts. They should be either remounted > in glass or a high quality glassless mount (Wess or Gepe) that will > hold the film flat. > > No amount of autofocusing is ever going to bring the center > and the edges into optimal focus if the film isn't flat. > > If the lights on these scanners were brighter, the lens could > use a smaller aperture which would help, but that's the realm of > professional scanners. > > Mr. Bill > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual >> focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the >> Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners >> have the problem under the autofocus option. > > -- > -- > 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: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ???
So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under the autofocus option. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike > Kersenbrock > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CS 5000 ED vs. Minolta ??? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Left out of the review are issues of focus at the edge of the film > >plane, where some say Nikon doesn't have sufficient depth of > field to > >handle film curvature. > > > And that's part of the "problem" with the Minolta (I have > the 5400 "1") in that the autofocus spot defaults to the > center, so if there's a curve to the film that may not be the > best spot (also not good if there are no boundaries there to > focus on). One can, of course, easily click-pick the > autofocus spot somewhere else on the prescan image, but then > it's not entirely "auto" (and is what I do). > > > Mike K. > > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: > 6/23/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Polaroid 120 opinions
Art, I would also be interested in locating and re-establishing contact with David - especially concerning the Polaroid Film Recorder that I have and how one might get or create new lookup files for it that are dedicated to handling today's batch of films. However, I think that he dropped out of sight deliberately after leaving Polaroid. My impression was that he was getting sort of feed up with Polaroid's policies and practices vis-à-vis its customers and employees. I got the impression that, unlike you and I, David's involvement with online lists and forums was primarily a work related obligation and responsibility as opposed to a personal one or an advocational one. Thus, if he has left the industry, I doubt if he would still be involved with online lists. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid 120 opinions > Hi James, > > You are speaking of David Hemingway. Some time back, I tried > to reconnect with him, but have not been able to locate him. > After he left Polaroid he stopped communicating with me, so I > have no news, unfortunately. He has a common name and so > trying to Google him isn't easy. > > Art > > > James L. Sims wrote: >> Alex, >> >> I have had a SprintScan 120 for a little over three years and am >> pleased with its performance. I have the glass 120 carrier, which I >> recommend. >> >> The unit locked up and had to go back to Polaroid shortly after I >> purchased it. I have had no problems since - knock wood! >> >> I purchased this unit because of the positive comments on this list >> and, at the time, there was a Polaroid rep commenting on this list. >> I can't remember his name but I was very impressed with his comments >> and conduct. Perhaps Art has had contact with him - if so, I'd like >> to know how he's doing. Art? >> >> Jim Sims >> > > -- > -- > 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:
I would not have responded to your post in the way I did or even replied to your suggestion if you had only quoted the original poster rather than citing and quoting a passage from my post. This led me to believe that you were responding to my post and not the original message. I have no basic objection to either your suggestion or your proposal. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: > > Ummm. It's not intended to contradicts anything you've said. > I did not intend to make a list of all the available > scanners and never said that I knew of one. All I did was > point out one scanner that might fit the bill -- that is > depending on how one thinks a "good job" is. The Epson 4990 > would seem to be adequate for many uses. This information > might help the poster of the original message. He may not > have got a list, but at least he got information on one > scanner that might meet his > needs. If any one knows of other scanners that might fit the bill, > please post the information. We can probably create our own > list right here on the forum -- or it the 4990 the only one? > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > >>I guess it all depends on how you define "a good job of scanning". > >>Doesn't the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner scan > transparencies up > >>to 8"x10"? > >> > >> > > > >I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I have said > or refutes > >anything I suggested. > >I think I acknowledged that there were flatbed scanners that > would do a > >satisfactory job and that there may even be some dedicated mailing > >lists for them. I went on to say that if an itemized listing of the > >scanners on the market capable of handling 5x7 and larger films and > >doing a good job in scanning them existed, I did not know of it. I > >still make that claim. One person's putting forth one name does not > >make a list of those scanners. I believe that the original message > >asked for a list of scanners and not suggestions as to specific > >individual scanners (although I did find it ambiguous if they were > >asking for an itemized listing of scanners or mailing lists > that focused on scanners used to scan that size film). > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: > >> > >>Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>>Thus, in my opinion, in the past there were mailing lists > >>> > >>> > >>and still may > >> > >> > >>>be mailing lists for the drum scanners and the Imacons as > >>> > >>> > >>well as for > >> > >> > >>>many of the flatbed scanners that could be used. But as for > >>> > >>> > >>an itemized > >> > >> > >>>list of all the various scanners that can do a good job of > >>> > >>> > >>scanning 5x7 > >> > >> > >>>and larger films, I know of none. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I guess it all depends on how you define "a good job of scanning". > >>Doesn't the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner scan > transparencies up > >>to 8"x10"? If all the resolution you need for a scan of > these large > >>film sizes is 1200 - 2400 dpi, shouldn't the Epson 4990 fit > the bill? > >>It's not a Howtek, but it has an excellent price to > performance ratio. > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE:
> I guess it all depends on how you define "a good job of scanning". > Doesn't the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner scan > transparencies up to 8"x10"? I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I have said or refutes anything I suggested. I think I acknowledged that there were flatbed scanners that would do a satisfactory job and that there may even be some dedicated mailing lists for them. I went on to say that if an itemized listing of the scanners on the market capable of handling 5x7 and larger films and doing a good job in scanning them existed, I did not know of it. I still make that claim. One person's putting forth one name does not make a list of those scanners. I believe that the original message asked for a list of scanners and not suggestions as to specific individual scanners (although I did find it ambiguous if they were asking for an itemized listing of scanners or mailing lists that focused on scanners used to scan that size film). > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > > >Thus, in my opinion, in the past there were mailing lists > and still may > >be mailing lists for the drum scanners and the Imacons as > well as for > >many of the flatbed scanners that could be used. But as for > an itemized > >list of all the various scanners that can do a good job of > scanning 5x7 > >and larger films, I know of none. > > > > > I guess it all depends on how you define "a good job of scanning". > Doesn't the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner scan > transparencies up to 8"x10"? If all the resolution you need > for a scan of these large film sizes is 1200 - 2400 dpi, > shouldn't the Epson 4990 fit the bill? > It's not a Howtek, but it has an excellent price to performance ratio. > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE:
Most use high optical resolution flatbed scanners with some form of transparency adapter to scan film formats 5x7 or larger since one often does not really need resolutions greater than 1200 - 2400 ppi which many current flatbed scanners can handle easily. Film scanners that can handle this size format are either drum scanners or one of the models of Imacon (sp) whose pricing is typically prohibitive for most non-commercial users and even for some commercial users given the declining amount of 5x7 and larger film format films being shot these days. Thus, in my opinion, in the past there were mailing lists and still may be mailing lists for the drum scanners and the Imacons as well as for many of the flatbed scanners that could be used. But as for an itemized list of all the various scanners that can do a good job of scanning 5x7 and larger films, I know of none. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bert Quijalvo Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] I know this has topic been covered recently, and I apologize for the revisit. Was there a list (as a result of the discussion) of recommended scanners for 5x7 transparency scanning? Or is there nothing that does a good enough job to create such a list? Bert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.1 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.1 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.1 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.1 - Release Date: 5/31/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
All films independent of type will get mold if stored under the right conditions. It is not the dye versus the silver that attracts it but the gelatin base of the emulsions that mold and fungus grow on and eat. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Modern photography... > > My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. > Is B&W more likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? > > Tony Sleep wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. > >> > >> > > > >You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before > it's too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
David, I am sure that we would all like to know the answer or at least get additional information as to the difference between RIP and the print driver. However, I am equally sure that software is NOT ALWAYS software. Some software is better than other software; some software has features and functions that other software of the same general category do not; and some software is more sophisticated than other software. The resampling method used by the Epson drivers (if they use the "nearest neighbor" method) is not the same or as good as Photoshop's Bicubic method or Genuine Fractal's method. Unlike most Epson print drivers, I believe RIPs allow one to exercise additional controls over the type of halftone screen or dithering is to be applied to the image both in terms of the size of the dots, the shape of the dots, and the nature of the matrix used in the halftone cells. But I could be wrong about this. Moreover, I believe that many quality service bureaus and labs as well as printers employ RIPs. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras > The next time I'm at the photo lab (which also has a print > service), I'm going to pick their brain regarding RIPs versus > just using the print driver. It seems to me that software is > software, i.e. the RIP is just doing the processing outside > the computer, rather than in the computer. > > Using a service bureau is of course another option to doing your own > prints. http://www.cantoo.com/ > They have some sample prints in their waiting room, one of > which has a white column in it. The digital artifacts are > pretty obvious to me, but the quality is certainly better > than any Epson or Canon output I've seen. > > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >>> I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels of >>> blackness (if that is the correct term) >>> >>> >> >> That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; >> another potential solution is to have not just different densities >> of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach >> alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be >> more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper >> types than densities of black and shades of gray. >> >> >> >>> I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would >>> still be making B&W with color ink. >>> >>> >> >> If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making >> black & white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing >> with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks >> to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use >> different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case >> for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the >> inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of >> dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I >> am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism >> however. >> >> At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact >> digital camera to capture mostly B&W images, one might be just as >> well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a >> compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various >> different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional >> wet B&W prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow >> for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing >> limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go >> for the digital compact camera because there is very little >> difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the >> nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the >> enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are >> some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as >> film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of >> the mill colors). >> >> Original Message >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras >> >> >> >>> I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels of >>> blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetm
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those that print on glossy can print with "glop" if they are using the R800 or R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution. Spraying the prints is also another option for glossy or even non-glossy prints; but one has to take care to get an even spray and to spray under the right humidity to avoid white specks. All in all, these all constitute the additional extra work that I mentioned in my original post. As for the post that is below which you have attached your message to, I was merely noting that the use of different density black inks or the use of different shades of gray in addition to densities of black might remedy color casts; but it may not in its own right serve as a corrective for bronzing or metemerism. Your response has done nothing to refute my position if that was its intent; but I do not think that was your intent. I believe that you may have just used my post as a vehicle for making your suggestions on how to handle the two problems, which I have no objection to. I am responding just clarify what I was trying to say so that there would be no misunderstanding. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras > As for bronzing, just print matte papers and it's a non > issue. I have used EEM and Photo Rag with fine results. > > For glossy, folks print with "glop" or spray the prints with > Print Shield which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing. > > Scott > > > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >>> I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels of >>> blackness (if that is the correct term) >>> >>> >> >> That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; >> another potential solution is to have not just different densities >> of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach >> alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be >> more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper >> types than densities of black and shades of gray. >> >> >> >>> I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would >>> still be making B&W with color ink. >>> >>> >> >> If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making >> black & white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing >> with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks >> to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use >> different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case >> for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the >> inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of >> dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I >> am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism >> however. >> >> At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact >> digital camera to capture mostly B&W images, one might be just as >> well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a >> compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various >> different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional >> wet B&W prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow >> for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing >> limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go >> for the digital compact camera because there is very little >> difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the >> nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the >> enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are >> some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as >> film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of >> the mill colors). >> >> Original Message >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras >> >> >> >>> I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels of >>> blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall >>> solution is just too expensive for me. >>> >>> I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would >>> still be making B&W with color ink. >>
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
I have no dispute with anything you have said below. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras > Hi Laurie, > >> I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; >> BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA >> WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) > > It's not an issue if you do a couple of things...as you touch on... > >> First, I believe that >> you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B & W printing to >> use it: > > Exactly. That alleviates the issue you bring up of switching > inks and flushing. > >> second you need to use special inksets. > > For B&W, yes...quadtone inks. > >> Third, even if you do >> not choose to >> use the CIS... > > I suggest instead of CIS, getting a printer that has LARGE > ink cartridges, like the Epson 3000. They are 4oz each I > believe. Very good size, compared to something like the 1270/1280. > >> ...but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between B&W >> and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the >> printer prior to each changing back and forth from B&W to color. > > ..that, IMO, is a waste of time and money. You'll spend more > in money on flush kits, and clogs than it's worth. Printers > are reasonably cheap, and it's the ink that seems to add up > in cost, at least for me. > >> Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the >> issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the >> printer's driver. > > I personally recommend the Piezography set-up, though I use > the original Piezography that was actually developed by > Sundance/R9, not by Inkjet Mall/Cone as was claimed, though > sold by them as Piezography. Inkjet Mall/Cone has a new > system that I have not used. I think the old stuff is still > available from R9 (www.bwguys.com). > > Regards, > > Austin > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
> I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels > of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. > I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you > would still be making B&W with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black & white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly B&W images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet B&W prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras > I think the solution is to have B&W ink in different levels > of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the > inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. > > I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you > would still be making B&W with color ink. > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; >> BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA >> WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I >> believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B & W >> printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, >> even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as >> to be able to switch easily between B&W and color, you need to flush >> the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each >> changing back and forth from B&W to color. >> >> Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the >> issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the >> printer's driver. >> >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras >>> >>> You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet >>> printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really >>> amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black >>> and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. >>> >>> >>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find >>>> >>>> >>> digital black >>> >>> >>>> and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital >>>> camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor >>>> displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black & white to >>>> be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct >>>> or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as >>>> the ability of dye based inkjet
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B & W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between B&W and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from B&W to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras > > You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing > system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No > bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long > tonal scale. It is really, really very good. > > > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > > > > > >First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find > digital black > >and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital > >camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor > >displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black & white to be > >full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or > >minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the > >ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet > prints to render > >the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism > >with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the > >tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when > >rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color > artifacts in > >the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, > some of this > >will be found with B&W film based captures that are scanned and > >reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures > since these > >issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages > >rather than the capture stages; but I have found the > problems easier to > >deal with when scanning B&W films and rendering them into monitor > >displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. > >This is especially true given that there are a number of > varying film > >types and speeds to use that are better for different > subjects and scan > >with differing results with respect to some of the problems > mentioned > >like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which > is not true > >for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital > >cameras to select from that use different sensors in > different configurations. > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
While I do not usually engage in this sort of comparative reviewing of products nor in the recommending of them, I will make two general observations from my experiences, which need to be taken with a grain of salt since they entail my biases and preferences. First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black & white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with B&W film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found the problems easier to deal with when scanning B&W films and rendering them into monitor displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. This is especially true given that there are a number of varying film types and speeds to use that are better for different subjects and scan with differing results with respect to some of the problems mentioned like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which is not true for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital cameras to select from that use different sensors in different configurations. However, secondly, for color, I have been quite impressed at the results; and if my experiences are any example, I think that the technology has reached a stage where film versus digital becomes a toss up when comparing small format cameras. I have been using as a personal digital camera which I use for snapshots a Nikon 4300 4 megapixel digital camera. While it is an older model of the point and shoot digital cameras which may not be on the market anymore, I have been quite amazed with the quality of the color images it is able to capture even after those images have been enlarged and printed both full frame at 16 x 20 inches as well as only a cropped section of the frame at 16 X 20 inches. I expected the image to fall apart, display a prominent dot pattern, be soft, and contain numerous color artifacts; this was not the case. The prints did show some of the same sorts of printing problems as B&W when they were made with inkjet printers but did not come off as pronounced as was the case with grayscale images. Unlike the B&W, you did not have to go to as many extraordinary measures to remedy or minimize the printing issues. However, when I had the images enlarged and printed using one of the hybrid printing process like the LED Chromira printer printing to traditional Fuji color photographic paper - gloss or luster - the prints displayed none of the problems that I saw with the inkjet color prints which I made. Thus, I think a 7 megapixel camera should serve you well for color images. I cannot comment on the remarks by others about a deterioration in the quality of current point and shoot digital cameras due to a cheapening ion sensors and sensor design as compared to the older ones like the Nikon 4300. But I can say that professionally I also use a Nikon D100 and a Kodak Pro 14/n and have found that the quality of the image output of the Nikon 4300 is every bit as good, although it will not stand the degree of enlargement of cropped sections as the other cameras and does not have the flexibility that they have with interchangeable lenses. However, the Nikon 4300 cost me new $499 US while the Nikon D-100 cost $1,000 US used and the Kodak Pro 14/n ran $2,400 US used. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Compact Cameras > Hi, > > I know this question has been asked in the past (and slightly > off-topic) but times change so I'd thought I'd raise it again. > > I recently read an article about a photographer who started > out with digital (Fujifilm S2 Pro) but then switched to > medium format for colour and to an Olympus XA for 35mm black & white. > > The latter part caught my eye as I use an XA for its size and > portability, albeit with slide film. I like the XA and its > exposure is normally reasonable but always feel restricted by > the lack of manual exposure. (I often use a hand held meter > with my "proper" cameras.) Additionally, although I enjoy > occasional s
[filmscanners] RE: scanning at less than optical res
Art, Bob clarified what he was referring to in a later post, which you may have seen. The gist of it was that the post on this list was a repost of a response he made on another list where the original poster said that they were essentially cropping a smaller portion of an image from a larger one during the scan. His reference to the large format scan was to a scan of the total image versus reducing the scan to the cropped portion only. > My UMAX Astra 1200S (Flatbed) definitely, at least in the direction of > the scan "head", doesn't scan full optical if you choose a lower than > optic resolution. I can both see and hear the stepper motor change > number or size of the discreet steps it uses. My understanding is that the horizontal line of sensors define the optical resolution and this definition is uneffected by the step motor operation which controls the verticle movement of the horizintal line of sensors, which are fixed. Thus the size of the steps taken may change and probably do, but the effective optical resolution remains the same and the reduction in the size of the sample is a software instituted operation performed on the full optical scan. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Maybe it should have been called "larger file scanning" or Larger > format output scanning? > > It would be nice to know which scanners did what when lower resolution > modes are selected. > > My UMAX Astra 1200S (Flatbed) definitely, at least in the direction of > the scan "head", doesn't scan full optical if you choose a lower than > optic resolution. I can both see and hear the stepper motor change > number or size of the discreet steps it uses. I don't know what it > does > in the other direction, but based upon the speed difference, I'm > guessing it is not interpolation from a full optical scan, but instead > just ignoring the intermediate ones. > > Art > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> Yes, I did understand that; but I did not think that too many >> scanners out there used this approach except to produce low >> resolution preview scans. But I could be wrong. What I did not get >> and may have been a terminological confusion was his reference to >> "large format scanning" with respect to the discussion. I suppose >> he really meant to say - now that I re-examine it - "high resolution >> scanning" as contrasted to "large format scanning." >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM >> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res >> >> >> I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip >> lines >> or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking >> the full resolution and then averaging the pixels out via a series of >> algorithms. This, of course, would introduce a great many sampling >> errors, since it is a much coarser sample of the actual data. >> >> Some scanners do seem to do just this, as the resulting scan takes as >> little as one third the time to be scanned and produced as a raster >> image when the resolution is quartered. >> >> Art >> >> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >> >> >>>> If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the >>>> 4800 possible data points per inch and throws three out of every >>>> four away, or only samples every fourth possible point. So you are >>>> only getting one quarter of the possible data from the film. So >>>> why scan at large format if you are throwing three quarters of the >>>> film data away? >>> >>> >>> Bob, I beliee you are correct; but I do not understand your >>> question. What do you mean by "scan at large format" in this case? >>> I must have missed something in the discussion. The first >>> method,which you note, involves the actual sampling of original >>> data using sampling algorithms and does result in a loss of >>> ortiginal data; but the second method, which you speak of with >>> respect to Vuescan and is available in almost all other scnning >>> applications, involves resampling of the original sample data using >>> formulas for combining and recombining data on the basis of all >>> existing data and the formulas. Both methods, however, would >>> involve the scanner reading during the scan all 4800 points; so >>> both would involve a "scan at large format" - using your terms - or >>> whatever optical f
[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
Thanks, that clarifies things a great deal. - Original Message - From: "Bob Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res Laurie, I sent that reply to someone on another list who was using large-format film but then scanning it at one-quarter of the optical resolution of his scanner since he didn't want large files. There was some doubt as to whether I was correct, so I thought I would see what this filmscanners list had to say. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 >possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or >only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one >quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if >you are throwing three quarters of the film data away? Bob, I beliee you are correct; but I do not understand your question. What do you mean by "scan at large format" in this case? I must have missed something in the discussion. The first method,which you note, involves the actual sampling of original data using sampling algorithms and does result in a loss of ortiginal data; but the second method, which you speak of with respect to Vuescan and is available in almost all other scnning applications, involves resampling of the original sample data using formulas for combining and recombining data on the basis of all existing data and the formulas. Both methods, however, would involve the scanner reading during the scan all 4800 points; so both would involve a "scan at large format" - using your terms - or whatever optical format is used by the scanner. After the scan, everything else by way of sampling or resampling is either digital conversion via hardware or software generated. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.5.0 - Release Date: 12/9/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.5.0 - Release Date: 12/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
Yes, I did understand that; but I did not think that too many scanners out there used this approach except to produce low resolution preview scans. But I could be wrong. What I did not get and may have been a terminological confusion was his reference to "large format scanning" with respect to the discussion. I suppose he really meant to say - now that I re-examine it - "high resolution scanning" as contrasted to "large format scanning." - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip lines or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking the full resolution and then averaging the pixels out via a series of algorithms. This, of course, would introduce a great many sampling errors, since it is a much coarser sample of the actual data. Some scanners do seem to do just this, as the resulting scan takes as little as one third the time to be scanned and produced as a raster image when the resolution is quartered. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >>If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 >>possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or >>only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one >>quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if >>you are throwing three quarters of the film data away? > > > Bob, I beliee you are correct; but I do not understand your question. What > do you mean by "scan at large format" in this case? I must have missed > something in the discussion. The first method,which you note, involves > the > actual sampling of original data using sampling algorithms and does result > in a loss of ortiginal data; but the second method, which you speak of > with > respect to Vuescan and is available in almost all other scnning > applications, involves resampling of the original sample data using > formulas > for combining and recombining data on the basis of all existing data and > the > formulas. Both methods, however, would involve the scanner reading during > the scan all 4800 points; so both would involve a "scan at large format" - > using your terms - or whatever optical format is used by the scanner. > After > the scan, everything else by way of sampling or resampling is either > digital > conversion via hardware or software generated. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Frost > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] scanning at less than optical res > > > Is this correct? > > > "As I understand things, a scanner with an > optical resolution of 4800dpi can take a sample reading every 1/4800 of an > inch. If you scan at the optical resolution, that is what is does and you > get 4800 readings per inch along that axis (usually a different resolution > on the other axis). > > If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 > possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or > only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one > quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if > you are throwing three quarters of the film data away? > > With Vuescan software, you can set it to scan all 4800 data points per > inch, > but then to take the average of every four data points and reduce them to > one, so that the file you get out is the equivalent of a 1200dpi scan, but > all the data points have contributed to the final result." > > Bob Frost. > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title > or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.8 - Release Date: 12/8/2004 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.8 - Release Date: 12/8/2004 > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Ch
[filmscanners] RE: scanning at less than optical res
>If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 >possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or >only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one >quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if >you are throwing three quarters of the film data away? Bob, I beliee you are correct; but I do not understand your question. What do you mean by "scan at large format" in this case? I must have missed something in the discussion. The first method,which you note, involves the actual sampling of original data using sampling algorithms and does result in a loss of ortiginal data; but the second method, which you speak of with respect to Vuescan and is available in almost all other scnning applications, involves resampling of the original sample data using formulas for combining and recombining data on the basis of all existing data and the formulas. Both methods, however, would involve the scanner reading during the scan all 4800 points; so both would involve a "scan at large format" - using your terms - or whatever optical format is used by the scanner. After the scan, everything else by way of sampling or resampling is either digital conversion via hardware or software generated. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Frost Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] scanning at less than optical res Is this correct? "As I understand things, a scanner with an optical resolution of 4800dpi can take a sample reading every 1/4800 of an inch. If you scan at the optical resolution, that is what is does and you get 4800 readings per inch along that axis (usually a different resolution on the other axis). If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if you are throwing three quarters of the film data away? With Vuescan software, you can set it to scan all 4800 data points per inch, but then to take the average of every four data points and reduce them to one, so that the file you get out is the equivalent of a 1200dpi scan, but all the data points have contributed to the final result." Bob Frost. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.8 - Release Date: 12/8/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.8 - Release Date: 12/8/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have resolution
and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering instructions which
tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a
certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print.
This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or
print in terms of its rendered output size. It also is what determines what
the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given
resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size resolution
box prior to any changing of the file by the user.
In short, I was suggesting not to save the captured image in JPEG format
with the selection of either the low or medium quality settings and
sometimes even the Fine setting if that is the next to highest setting; nor
would I recommend saving the file to a TIFF format using the Low, Medium,
and sometimes Fime settings. By using the highest setting or option
available on the camera which usually can be slected for the TIFF format and
not the JPEG format (we are not talking about RAW formats here), you will
get the best image in quality and resolution to use as the archival basis
for genrating working copies at resolutions and image sizes for uyse in the
varied purposes that the image might be used ( i.e., on the internet,
printed via inkjet, or reproduced via printing press for puting on the
refrigerator, greeting cards, displaying on a wall, or for publication).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: "Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would
also be good . . . The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting
serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi . . . "
--
With all this discussion of file resolution, I feel I should point out again
that *files* don't really have a "resolution". That is an attribute that's
assigned when the file is printed or displayed. Files have size (in pixels),
and a 3000x2100-pixel file can be 300-dpi(ppi) ("hi-res") and be reproduced
at 10"x7" or it can be 72-dpi(ppi) ("lo-res") and be reproduced at about
42"x29". There is nothing about an image file that makes it hi-res or
lo-res. The same file can be hi-res or lo-res depending on the intended
output size.
Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
I beg to differ with you; but I am not going to get into a food fight with you over it. In the case of RAW, you are correct the dpi is somewhat irrelevant in that raw files do not contain any reference to resolution per se only to the size of the image X x Y pixels; however, if you save to a standard non-RAW format, resolution does matter in that it is made part of the file metadata which is used to instruct applications how to render the image in the image file. However, in terms of the camera, there is not specific settings that use the terminology or provide for options in ppi or dpi terms per se. The frequently set the effective resolutions in terms of the maximum umber of pixels along the longest side that are captured but assume that is will be divided by 300 dpi when written to the standard non-raw file format. This is what allows them to point to print sizes that can be produced at different quality levels depending on the quality level/file format combination selected. But more importantly, many if not all cameras do put resolution limitations on what can be saved when it is being saved to standard non-RAW files. The two Nikon digital cameras and the Kodak pro 14/n that I own will not allow one to save images to Jpeg file formats with resolutions certain maximum effective resolution; wherein the TIFF format permits the highest ant the JPEG format allows for lesser effective resolution depending on the compreesion level selected. To wit, capture an image at each of the available quality and format combinations your camera allows (except RAW) and open each image without any manipulation in Photoshop and check the resolution of the opened image in the Photoshop Image/Image Size box in the Resolution space. I think you will find that they will have different resolutions (dpi/ppi). This is not after any resampling or after the image has been through the printer and produced as a hard copy but as it is rendered on the monitor display in ppi directly as imported from the camera flash card. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the "dpi" setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > > > Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; > but I assume > that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your > images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but > capturing them > at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also > be good, as > long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to > work with them > prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a > TIFF (or PSD if > you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and > edit them image > editing programs like Photoshop, including using > interpolation if necessary. > The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious > pictures is to > capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting > exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot > prints. Even if > those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I > would shoot at > maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with > lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality > original possible; > You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg > for use on the > internet and you can always downsample the image resolution > to 72 dpi after > the fact (both of which I would save as different working > copies of the file > so as to retain the original file. > > In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make > a working TIFF > copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would > make any jpeg > files. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM > To:
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to work with them prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a TIFF (or PSD if you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and edit them image editing programs like Photoshop, including using interpolation if necessary. The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot prints. Even if those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I would shoot at maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality original possible; You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg for use on the internet and you can always downsample the image resolution to 72 dpi after the fact (both of which I would save as different working copies of the file so as to retain the original file. In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make a working TIFF copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would make any jpeg files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi > resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 > x 6 sizes at best). > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, Again I have no complaint with your description of the differences between GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I looked at your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any differnces between them and do not see the artificial elements in the foreground that you note. Maybe it is because I am viewing the images over the internet on a monitor or maybe I am just not as sensitive and picky as you. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > From: Laurie Solomon > > Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done > since. I am > not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic > formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by > furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As I understand it, bicubic is a linear (in the sense of linear algebra) resampling filter. If you blow something way up, you always wind up with a blurry result, if you zoom in on it. PS CS has added Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper variants, but they merely tweak the high frequency response of the filter, which you can see quite easily if you blow up some sharp edges to 10x. GF attempts to go beyond that by finding edges, and then trying to preserve that edge sharpness when it upsamples. This is nonlinear processing, and is in some sense artificial--and therefore not always effective. I find that it works great on images that have distinct edges, e.g., architectural shots, but sometimes creates edges where there were none. I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge detail. You can see what I mean: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic Photoshop special effect. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done since. I am not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As in the past, it is debatable if there is or is not a need to employ 3rd party solutions like GF. In the end, it all boils down to standards and tastes ultimately if Bicubic methods cut it ot not and if the 3rd party solutions are improvements over the Bicubic methods. I only mentioned the cited example as evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or 5 X. - Original Message - From: "Ed Verkaik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. >> Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS right? I understood that PSCS had significant improvements doing down- and upsizing and effectively removed the need for a 3rd party solution like GF. Ed Verkaik 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: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, > If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look artificial I think if you overuse any tool, it starts to look artificial; but that being said, I think that your 4x guideline needs to be qualified by the proviso that it depends on the type and content of the image. As you note, it works best with images that have sharp edges; thus, they along with some other images with other properties might be enlarged to a greater extent than 4x. I personally, have found that I was able to enlarge images up to 20x without them looking artificial. Moreover, even if some would find some artifical looking aspects to them, I would venture to say that the artificiality is no greater than that produced by Photoshop's bicubic used for the same degree of enlargement. However, it has also been my experience that the greater the degree of enlargment the better Gf has done as compared to Bicubic ( at least the bicubic method used in pre-CS versions of Photoshop. I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > From: Brad Davis > > Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner > provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but > there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I > would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's > BiCubic - it > depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine Fractals. > > I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my experience is > that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. > > So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up sampling to > allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an > original like > a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it, because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look artificial. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but > then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF format just to see what the camera could do. I had it enlarged to 16 x 20 and printed via a Chromira LED printer on traditional Fuji color photographic paper via the wet photographic process. The sharpness and color blew me away; I was very impressed having expected much less. In fact it was better than some of the stuff I shot of the same subject with the traditional film camera. In fact, the client bought the 16x20 test print over those images shot on film for use as a display at trade showes promoting his products and services. Since then, I went out and bought a Kodak DCS 14/n which is a full frame 35mm 14MP digital camera, which I have used on a number of commercial jobs. Thus, I fail to see why you cannot get a 12x18 or larger high 1quality print out of the camera you are using as long as you can capture it to a TIFF file format with somewhere around a 200-300 ppi resilution. > I expect that I will want to get the professional version as it seems to have more > capability. The only difference is if you are sending the images to a press for publication as a CYMK color space image or sending them spearations. The only significant difference between the standard version and the Pro version is that the standard version only works with RGB files which is what most digital files are and what most inkjet,laser, and hybrid photographic printers use, while the Pro version works with RGB and CYMK files. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling >> within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from >> Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of >> upsampling that the difference may begin to appe >> arandGFmaybegintoshine. >> >> What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why >> are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which >> uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let >> you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to >> limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were >> me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most >> cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. Resolutions of 72 >> ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not >> for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can >> capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be >> used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 >> x 6 sizes at best). > > > Laurie, > > Good question. Initially, I didn't *ever* use the digital camera (a > sony 707) for anything that I would want to enlarge too much. But of > course, it happened that I took a shot here and there that I did want > to use larger. Initially, the memory available for the Sony was just > 128 Mbytes (now it is > much better) and the number of TIFFs allowed per memory stick was > quite > small as a result. > > In any case, the upshot is that I now have a number of images that I > like - > some shot as experiments (digital encourages that a lot) some shot as > records, some for other circumstances, and while I can squeeze some > of them > a great deal, I would like to find a way that is consistent. I found > that > for a time I did shoot more with the Sony - in situations where I > probably > should have been using my Contax, but had been seduced by the instant > reinforcement of the Sony - even at just 5 Mpix, lossy captured at > 1.5 Mpix. > As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but > then I go > to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), and - Oh Well. > > I have experimented with the TIFF, and it does better (duh), but it > still is > no match for even my six year old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 working on > negatives and transparencies from my Contax system. I don't care > that the > Sony has a Zeiss lens too (it is the only zoom I own - the one on the > Sony). > > Of course I want a DSLR with preferably 24 Mpix, but I can't begin to > afford that right > now.IseeoneoftheCanon's8Mpixasmynextcamera > and while that will be better, it is still the same problem, just > somewhat less. So, maybe it is time to take advantage of Genuine > Fractals. Thus the question. > > ( I also have a tendency to want to see how far I can push any given > technolog
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 x 6 sizes at best). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My > scanner provides very high resolution compared to my (current) > digital camera, but > there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera > that I > would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's > BiCubic - it depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine > Fractals. > > I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my > experience is > that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. > > So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up > sampling to > allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an > original like > a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Software dust removal
I concur with Art's comments respecting dICE's softening of images. A key factor is the verion of dICE that is used and implemented by the scanner manufacturer as well as the specific negatives it is applied to and how well they were processed to remove silver. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > on 11/10/04 1:32 AM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Although I'm not a big fan of some versions of dICE (due to the fact >> that it can tend to soften the whole image due to residual silver >> removal (which it infers is dust or dirt)), or if the IR is not >> exactly tuned to the dye spectrum frequencies, it does work on most >> E-6 developed slides, and some Kodachrome versions. >> >> Otherwise, I agree with the other exceptions you mention. >> >> Art >> >> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >> >>> Two points need to be made. One deals with one of your comments >>> concerning getting ICE. ICE only works with color negtives or >>> chromgenic black & white films. It does not work with silver >>> halide films like true b&w films. The second point, which is not >>> one that addresses anything that you have said but something that >>> someone else said, deals with blowing compressed air into the >>> scanner. This does not remove the dust from inside the scanner; it >>> only moves the dust around inside the scanner. Moreover, the >>> compressed air blast can damage fragile innards of the scanner as >>> well as create condensation inside the scanner which will >>> eventually produce moisture on the electronics and water spots on >>> optical mirrors and sensors. >>> >> >> > I am shooting only negative (C-41) films, almost all ISO 100 to 400 > color, occasionally B&W (C-41). Is there a consensus about how well > dICE works > with these films? I am concerned about any softening since I am > printing > large. > > Berry > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Software dust removal
Two points need to be made. One deals with one of your comments concerning getting ICE. ICE only works with color negtives or chromgenic black & white films. It does not work with silver halide films like true b&w films. The second point, which is not one that addresses anything that you have said but something that someone else said, deals with blowing compressed air into the scanner. This does not remove the dust from inside the scanner; it only moves the dust around inside the scanner. Moreover, the compressed air blast can damage fragile innards of the scanner as well as create condensation inside the scanner which will eventually produce moisture on the electronics and water spots on optical mirrors and sensors. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Kersenbrock Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Software dust removal Chris Aitken wrote: > Hi All, > > Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I > have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers - > so this must be a later model that works on XP). As an alternative to blasting air at the negative before scanning as mentioned to you already, there's a brush called 'staticmaster" that has a polonium strip near the brush end that puts out alpha particles (can't penetrate a sheet of paper, at best can do only inches of air). It removes static "instantly" from the film at which point the very soft brush works very effectively. Half life of the polonium is very short so it's cartridge needs to be replaced yearly (and buying old ones isn't useful). They've been around for at least a half century or so, and I just got another one a couple days ago for use with my new film scanner. The other thing is the obvious nobody's going to mention. Borrow a different scanner, one that features ICE in the software. Gets rid of dust and scratches amazingly and automatically. :-) Mike K. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Test
It got through. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear > and I > don't get any admin/error messages. This test is just to see if a > message with different text fares any better! > > > Al Bond > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.765 / Virus Database: 512 - Release Date: 9/16/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.765 / Virus Database: 512 - Release Date: 9/16/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
> All this might not be necessary if MS learned to play well with > others! MS does play well with others; but only if it can be boss. :-) Unfortunately, this seems to be a common failing of the whole industry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > installed > > > Laurie, > > This site: www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa571/aspi.htm has the FTP & URL > addresses for Adaptec. > > The Radified web site < http://aspi.radified.com/> offers this bit of > jargon: "The term 'ASPI' is an acronym that stands for: Advanced SCSI > Programming Interface. All the following terms are synonymous: ASPI > layer, ASPI drivers, ASPI interface." Radified also has links to the > ForceASPI program you refer to and a fairly detailed guide to how all > this stuff is supposed to work. Adaptec has an ASPI checker program, > so you can see what's installed, if anything -- that's available from > Radified as well. > > All this might not be necessary if MS learned to play well with > others! > > Bernie > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
Bernie, I was searching for the proper name for the Adaptec layer and could not remember it; but you came up with it. It is the ASPI layer that I was referring to. I am not sure if it is called or qualifies as a "driver" but it is a file that is used with SCSI devices. It can also be obtained on the Adaptec web site, I believe. If I recollect correctly, there is also a program for forcing the installation of the ASPI layer on Microsoft systems which rejected it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > installed > > > Jim, > > To test the USB scanner as SCSI device theory, you may want to > install an ASPI driver and see if that helps, then follow the same > startup sequence those of us using SCSI cards do (in my case a > Polaroid 4000). > > Ed Hamrick has a driver posted on his web site: > www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#windows (same driver for Win2K & > XP) Or look at www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa571/aspi.htm or > http://aspi.radified.com/ both have notes on "sorting out the ASPI" > driver mess" and links to Adaptec drivers. > > The last two websites mention the Adaptec/Microsoft struggle Laurie > refers to. > > Startup sequence is turn on the scanner, then turn on or reboot the > computer, scanner gets recognized. > > Bernie >> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
> Yes. That doesn't seem to do any good, Laurie. However, In trying > this again to be sure, I decided to turn off the scanner and then > turn it back on. On the third try it recognized it. One other thing > I should point out. When I first turn on the scanner, this is after > the computer has been turned on for the day, the scanner drivers are > reinstalled - "Windows has found new hardware" routine. Almost every > time there is an indication of an error in the installation at the > "Finish" applet. Yes, this is what happens when you attempt to install some SCSI scanners that are connected to a SCSI card. Tou often wind up needing to install up to 8 instances of the scanner before the OS will recognize it. The installation of each instance presents a "Windows has found New Hardware" and there is an indication of an error at the end with the a repeat of the "Windows has Found New Hardware" until the magic number of instances has been installed. I think I refer to this in my second paragraph. What I did not mention is that Microsoft at one point with XP was having an argument with Adaptec and refused to license their SCSI layer files and developed their own. The Microsoft layer software frequently would not work well or reliably with some SCSI devices whose manufactures used the Adaptec standards. I believe the two companies have now reconciled their differences; but I believe that XP installs the Microsoft developed SCSI layer by default and not the Adaptec one, which is one of the resons why some scanners are not recognized under the "Scanners & Cameras" menu item in the Control Panel but appear as a separate menue item such as "Unknown" or "Imaging Devices". This sort of thing may be at the base of your problem; but I am just speculating. > I'm not sure how to do that. Epson packages all the drivers for a > specific machine into one compressed file. Install the scanner as a SCSI device rather than a USB device, this should enable you to install the Epson SCSI drivers. They should remain installed in XP until you manually remove them, which you will not be doing. Then install the Epson scanner as a USB scanner which should cause Epson to install the appropriate Epson drivers in XP, resulting in your having both sets of drivers installed. I wouuld not use the Microsoft recommended "Let Windows find the driver" option or install the drivers from the Epson CD (if you can avoid it); but I would select to manually instal the drivers by selecting the non-automatic option that Windows offers which will allow you to search the CD for drivers to be installed manually. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > installed > > > > > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >>> What's strange is that the only device drivers that go away are the >>> Epson scanner drivers. >>> >>> >> >> This makes me think the problem is that the scanner is basically a >> SCSI based scanner which uses a USB port but feeds to a SCSI driver. >> The driver that goes away may be the SCSI driver. The way that SCSI >> devices with SCSI cards work the card is recognized before the OS >> and the scanner is recognized only if it is turned on and connected >> to the card at boot up before the OS loads. If this is not the case >> one has to turn the SCSI device one and go to device manager and >> refresh and rescan for devices after the OS loads. This may be the >> same for USB connected internal SCSI devices as well. Have you tried >> rescanning for new deviced in device manager to fine the scanner >> after it has disappeared? >> >> > Yes. That doesn't seem to do any good, Laurie. However, In trying > this again to be sure, I decided to turn off the scanner and then > turn it back on. On the third try it recognized it. One other thing > I should point out. When I first turn on the scanner, this is after > the computer has been turned on for the day, the scanner drivers are > reinstalled - "Windows has found new hardware" routine. Almost every > time there is an indication of an error in the installation at the > "Finish" applet. This is the only device that want to reinstall > itself upon first use each day. You may be right about it "spoofing > the SCSI drive through the USB port. > >> >> >>> Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the >>> scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognize >>> >>> >> >> This is common for SCSI scanners which often need to be reinstalled >> up to 8 times in succession without any uninstalling of them before >> they are recognized by the OS. This makes me think the problem is >> t
[filmscanners] RE: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
>What's strange is that the only >device drivers that go away are the Epson scanner drivers. This makes me think the problem is that the scanner is basically a SCSI based scanner which uses a USB port but feeds to a SCSI driver. The driver that goes away may be the SCSI driver. The way that SCSI devices with SCSI cards work the card is recognized before the OS and the scanner is recognized only if it is turned on and connected to the card at boot up before the OS loads. If this is not the case one has to turn the SCSI device one and go to device manager and refresh and rescan for devices after the OS loads. This may be the same for USB connected internal SCSI devices as well. Have you tried rescanning for new deviced in device manager to fine the scanner after it has disappeared? >Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the >scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognize This is common for SCSI scanners which often need to be reinstalled up to 8 times in succession without any uninstalling of them before they are recognized by the OS. This makes me think the problem is that the scanner is basically a SCSI based scanner which uses a USB port but feeds to a SCSI driver. There were some older parallel port devices that internally were SCSI devices and used SCSI drivers but required a parallel port driver as well so that they could be ported to the parallel port and then to the SCSI driver. Your scanner may be along those lines except it uses a USB port and USB mini-driver instead of the parallel port min-driver employed by the older devices. It is possible that this is confusing you OS or producing some sort of conflict. Try installing the SCSI driver for this scaanner along with the USB and see if that helps. >The shutdown sequence seems to go normally but it will >not power down Somehow and for some reason your scanner is causing the system to go into hybernation rather than shut down. Do you turn the scanner's power off before shutting the system down? If not, the system may still see the scanner as beign in use and is reverting to hybernation rather than shut down. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed Laurie, I almost always have only one scanner turned on. I have each USB device in its own port - Epson scanner, Epson printer, trackball, and multi-card reader (that takes up two ports). I have tried switching ports (a suggestion made by Epson). What's strange is that the only device drivers that go away are the Epson scanner drivers. Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognized. Another anomaly is that the computer will often not power down after I use the Epson Scanner. The shutdown sequence seems to go normally but it will not power down - screen goes dark, hard drives spool down, but the fans and power light stay on. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >I have had problems trying to run two scanners off a SCSI card wherein one of the scanners insisted that it be loaded first or else it would not load. Others have said that they have run into a similar thing with a SCI card where one of the scanners insisted on being given a specific ID assignment on the SCSI card or on the card being put into a specifc slot on the motherboard. Maybe a similar thing is taking place where the two scanner drivers are in conflict due to the way they load. If one keeps the Polaroid turned off, doe the Epson continue to lose its driver recognition? It might also be a conflict between the other USB devices and the scanner. I assume that all the USB devices are plugged into their own ports on the motherboard or they are all plugged into a powered hub. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James L. Sims >Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed > >I am having a problem with my computer dropping a driver. I have a >Polaroid SprintScan 120 film scanner (firewire interface) and an Epson 1650 scanner (USB interface. In addition, I have a multi-card reader and a trackball that also have USB interfaces. My problem is that I have to reinstall the drivers for the Epson scanner almost every time I use it. My operating system is Windows 2000. > >Has anyone experienced this problem? The Epson scanner also has a SCSI interface. Maybe using it would help. I haven't done that because the scanner has a 50-pin connector and my Adaptec SCSI card has a 25-pin connector - I guess there's s
[filmscanners] RE: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
I have had problems trying to run two scanners off a SCSI card wherein one of the scanners insisted that it be loaded first or else it would not load. Others have said that they have run into a similar thing with a SCI card where one of the scanners insisted on being given a specific ID assignment on the SCSI card or on the card being put into a specifc slot on the motherboard. Maybe a similar thing is taking place where the two scanner drivers are in conflict due to the way they load. If one keeps the Polaroid turned off, doe the Epson continue to lose its driver recognition? It might also be a conflict between the other USB devices and the scanner. I assume that all the USB devices are plugged into their own ports on the motherboard or they are all plugged into a powered hub. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed I am having a problem with my computer dropping a driver. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120 film scanner (firewire interface) and an Epson 1650 scanner (USB interface. In addition, I have a multi-card reader and a trackball that also have USB interfaces. My problem is that I have to reinstall the drivers for the Epson scanner almost every time I use it. My operating system is Windows 2000. Has anyone experienced this problem? The Epson scanner also has a SCSI interface. Maybe using it would help. I haven't done that because the scanner has a 50-pin connector and my Adaptec SCSI card has a 25-pin connector - I guess there's such a thing as an adapter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scan Dual IV vs Scan Dual II
> Most rolls I have gotten back from a variety of labs seem dust-free, but the scanner still > picks up a lot of tiny-to-small spots. There are a number of possible causes for this. Some may be as Brad suggests dirt/dust as well as water marks and contaminants embedded in the emulsion during processing which are too small to be seen in small prints or via the naked eye on the film. Some may be due to dirt and dust in the scanner itself which due to air movement may fall in different places on some film and not at all on other film during the scanning process; or it may fall on the scanner's sensor during the scanning process. >I don't know whether dICE would be faster or > not, but I expect it would be a lot more fun. I don't know what you mean by "fun;" but if you mean that it would not be as tedious, I can accept that. I will not argue with you that manually fixing scratches and dust marks is a tedious pain; but I will remind you that dICE does not work well with b&W silver halide based films or with Kodachrome. > It was so nice to be able to concentrate on color (and other image) issues only, and not have to go through each > scan fixing the spots. I can't argue with that. :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "LAURIE SOLOMON" wrote: "Preston, I have to wonder if time were money > if you would actually save a whole lot by using dICE since using it > often slows down the scan speed a great deal. If one cleaned one's > film > and dust out of the scanner, would one have to spend more than a > minimal > amount of time touching up dust on the film scans without dICE as > compared to the amount of time a dICE scan would take? It make > (might) > be a toss up." > - > > I have my film processed at a one-hour lab, have prints made, and then > scan the negatives. (I ask the lab not to cut the negatives and to be > careful in handling them. The operators seem to be conscientious in > trying to keep the negs clean and scratch-free.) I don't clean the > negs > beyond perhaps wiping them with a lint-free cloth, and I don't always > do > that. (It doesn't seem to make any difference.) Most rolls I have > gotten > back from a variety of labs seem dust-free, but the scanner still > picks > up a lot of tiny-to-small spots. The Polaroid D&SR filter takes care > of > the tiny ones, but it still takes a couple of minutes to clone or heal > the larger ones. Plus, with the D&SR, I have to be conscious of > artifacts created in the cleaning process, particularly in the > specular highlights of the image. I don't know whether dICE would be > faster or > not, but I expect it would be a lot more fun. > > I did have one roll of old (circa. 2000) negatives I uncovered the > other > day, and when I scanned them, there were virtually no spots to be > cleaned on any of the scans. It was so nice to be able to concentrate > on > color (and other image) issues only, and not have to go through each > scan fixing the spots. > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.751 / Virus Database: 502 - Release Date: 9/2/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scan Dual IV vs Scan Dual II
>if time were money (it >isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE. Preston, I have to wonder if time were money if you would actually save a whole lot by using dICE since using it often slows down the scan speed a great deal. If one cleaned one's film and dust out of the scanner, would one have to spend more than a minimal amount of time touching up dust on the film scans without dICE as compared to the amount of time a dICE scan would take? It make be a toss up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scan Dual IV vs Scan Dual II "Berry Ives" wrote: "Okay, does anyone have experience on both the Minolta SD2 and SD4? If so, please share that with me. I've read the specs already." I don't usually do "Me too" posts, but I want to second Arthur Entlich's post (and I hope my agreeing with him doesn't spoil his Curmudgeon Score too badly ). I had a SDII and replaced it with a SDIII when the SDII got where it wouldn't "take in" the film holder to start a scan. The quality difference between the II and III is dramatic. There is almost no banding on the III, where that was a significant problem on the II. I haven't tried the Minolta software solutions for grain and dust. (I believe Vuescan gives noticeably better color than the OEM software), so I can't comment on that issue. I do know that on the III model, spots/dust are still a significant problem, and if time were money (it isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE. Grain is also a problem, thought it doesn't seem to be as bad as with the II. I haven't gone back to scan some old 5247 negative which had huge grain issues when scanned on the II, but scans of modern film seem to have fewer grain problems. I understand the main difference between the III and IV is the resolution and that the overall quality is otherwise very similar. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.759 / Virus Database: 508 - Release Date: 9/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.759 / Virus Database: 508 - Release Date: 9/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: List future
Tony, I think we are on the same page; and I concur with many of your points. The list has for the most part had balance and been self correcting without heavy handed intervention on your part. The "arrow of time" typically goes in a linear fashion; but time may not have that characteristic any longer. The arrow may follow a curvilinear path or go through a time warp. The need that is being filled may become altered and modified whithout actually being changed. Just as many of the technigues, processes, hardware component operations, and workflows between digital cameras and scanners may merge together at points and go on different paths at other points, the commonalities related to the process of capturing an image and digitalizing it tend to remain. It tends to be only after the image has been digitalized that workflows, processes, techniques, methods, and hardware tend to diverge. I think that if one focuses and defines the scope as interest in the digital workflow to the capturing and digitalizing of analog images, a group will be able to self -regulate itself to stay primarily within that subject arena with some OT into related components of the digital processing of imagery. If the conversation drifts to far afield into the other aspects of the digital workflow, members could always direct the participants to the groups relevant to those topics as is the current case with this and other groups. If the OT is not related to the digital process but more social in character, I would not worry about that since I believe it is important to the sustenance of any group and this group in particular has tended to cope with such OT well for the most part. The problem of unregulated OT and bitching about OT in my experience comes when a list gets too large and too popular a well known resource so that subscribers fishing for technical assistance, buying advice, and How-To recipes tend to regard the list as if it were a commercuial paid for techniocal assitance resource and expect it to give quick and on the point business like handholding answers to the questioners questions, solutions to their problems, and resolution to issues that they encounter. At any rate, I respect your decisions any way you decide to go; I am just engaging you is discussion as a way of furnishing food for thought. :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >> But if your analysis is correct and traffic is negligable because >> most of the knowledgable users have adequate knowledge and are using >> their older models of scanner and not keeping up with the newer >> models, then eventually there will not be a group of informed >> contributing subscribers around to sustain the list as a dedicated >> reference forum or to provide that expertise tommorrow. > > All true. You can't escape entropy... > > >> There are two schools of thought about this; I take the other school >> and bind precisely focussed lists without OT to be both boring and >> lacking in any feeling of community among the subscribers who remain >> impersonal anonymous entities or institutional memory since members >> tend to treat the list as a technical support line only and lurk >> until they need something but rarely contribute information or feel >> obligated to do so. > > Also entirely true, successful lists are communities and social > places too. > Which is why I've always tried to use a light touch with OT stuff, > only intervening when I start getting complaints about excessive > rudeness or > pedantry. > > >> People who make up the the sustaining contributors to any list tend >> to leave even if the list is useful when the list becomes one where >> the same issues and questions repeatedly come up, the same >> discussion recirculate over and over repetitively, and nothing new >> and interesting is introduced. Ironically, it is OT discussions that >> add the spice and novelty to the list conversation that keeps the >> list alive and interesting to those who tend to be the sustaining >> contributors since they frequently are the ones who are giving out >> most of the information and rarely need much from the list by way of >> useful information having been there frequently in the past and >> acquired an adequate library of useful information already. > > Yup. Balance is essential. But successful lists start from a point of > fulfilling a need moving eventually to a fulfilled need. The arrow of > time. > >> With respect to diluting the list and digital imaging being a large >> topic that grows like topsy, you do not have to cover the total >> workflow. The list could be a dedicated conduit to the topic of >> digital capturing of imaging and restricted in its focus and scope >> to that portion of
[filmscanners] RE: List future
For starters, check out the Yahoo lists; I am sure you will find all kinds of lists on all kinds of hardware, applications, workflows, and processes. There are a number of lists on Photoshop CS alone. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad Davis Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: List future Tony, Thanks for your response. The past day or so has been an education for me. Initially, my concern was fueled by the fact that I needed some information (cleaning my Polaroid SS4000) and the concern that it might not have been available if I waited a little longer- that the list might have gone away. You've taken care of that concern. In part, because I much enjoyed reading the list when there was more activity, I asked if there was a way to get it moving again. I am convinced that my suggestion was the wrong direction, that leaving it as it is will suit all of us just fine. As to what kind of list I would like in addition - I feel that I am most behind the curve on various programs for image processing. I use Photoshop CS, and while I find it very useful, I keep coming across comments that this or that software does some things (even many things) better or easier or...? There is no way that I am going to be able to try even several of the better programs out there, any more than I am likely to try several different scanners. If anyone know of a list that addresses this topic - not an Adobe list, but one that is outside the vendors, that gets comments that are fully independent, I would like to go join such. If it doesn't exist as I have defined it, then it would be my candidate for a new list. Thanks again for this list, Tony, and for your clear headed thoughts on the topic of the future of this list. -- Brad " Oh nooo! I never meant to be quoted for something so stupid. I feel like the president now." Carolina Robinson On 9/9/04 16:00, "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, here's how I see it. > > 1. This list, like all lists, has a natural lifespan. A bit like a sun > past-its-best-by-date, it's now becoming a red dwarf. It'll probably be a > black hole in 10 years. > > 2. It's still useful to have a dedicated reference forum in one place, for > as long as there are filmscanners around. Even if traffic is negligible, it > may be tomorrow that any of us needs the conduit to the expertise of > others. > > 3. It suits me fine that it's quiet, less admin, no bandwidth problems, > little cost:) > > 4. Lists tend to be most useful when precisely focussed and not polluted > with OT wibble and squabbles about OT wibble. Widening the scope of this > list would only dilute that utility and risk driving away those who don't > share precisely the same interests, thereby diluting the usefulness of this > list for its primary purpose. If lists aren't useful, people leave. > > 5. Yes, it's absolutely true that dig.imaging is like the Chinese proverb: > you lift one blade of grass and up comes the whole field. And it's huge. So > it's a struggle to keep any list within sensible bounds, as what starts out > as a question about funny colour can instantaneously explode in 15 > different directions, ranging from film technology to lab standards, to > scanners, software, technique, monitors and calibration, colour management, > and print technologies, inksets, profiling yada yada Any one of those > single topics is a PhD level career for someone, and a busy list. > > 6. Given that I don't want to dilute this list, I am prepared to start one > or more others as well, so the community can potentially remain intact. > BUT: (a)not everybody who's in filmscanners will want to join a new list >(b)there is no point - and mutually destructive - to set up a new list > that replicates the interest area of another list that already exists. It's > far more useful to have know-how concentrated in one place. > > 7. So what areas are candidates for a new list(s)? I'm wary of jumping in > with a reinvention of epson_inkjet because that list required industrial > scale servers and bandwidth to sustain its traffic levels. It's not > surprising it died, the economics are ruinous. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > -- > -- > 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 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.749 / Virus Database: 501 - Release Date: 9/1/2004 --- Outg
[filmscanners] RE: List future
>2. It's still useful to have a dedicated reference forum in one place, for >as long as there are filmscanners around. Even if traffic is negligible, it >may be tomorrow that any of us needs the conduit to the expertise of >others. But if your analysis is correct and traffic is negligable because most of the knowledgable users have adequate knowledge and are using their older models of scanner and not keeping up with the newer models, then eventually there will not be a group of informed contributing subscribers around to sustain the list as a dedicated reference forum or to provide that expertise tommorrow. >4. Lists tend to be most useful when precisely focussed and not polluted >with OT wibble and squabbles about OT wibble. There are two schools of thought about this; I take the other school and bind precisely focussed lists without OT to be both boring and lacking in any feeling of community among the subscribers who remain impersonal anonymous entities or institutional memory since members tend to treat the list as a technical support line only and lurk until they need something but rarely contribute information or feel obligated to do so. > Widening the scope of this >list would only dilute that utility and risk driving away those who don't >share precisely the same interests, thereby diluting the usefulness of this >list for its primary purpose. If lists aren't useful, people leave. People who make up the the sustaining contributors to any list tend to leave even if the list is useful when the list becomes one where the same issues and questions repeatedly come up, the same discussion recirculate over and over repetitively, and nothing new and interesting is introduced. Ironically, it is OT discussions that add the spice and novelty to the list conversation that keeps the list alive and interesting to those who tend to be the sustaining contributors since they frequently are the ones who are giving out most of the information and rarely need much from the list by way of useful information having been there frequently in the past and acquired an adequate library of useful information already. >5. Yes, it's absolutely true that dig.imaging is like the Chinese proverb: With respect to diluting the list and digital imaging being a large topic that grows like topsy, you do not have to cover the total workflow. The list could be a dedicated conduit to the topic of digital capturing of imaging and restricted in its focus and scope to that portion of the workflow so as to cover digital capturing processes utilizing scanners and/or cameras. The processes used by scanners and cameras are very similar with digital cameras being more like digital scanners that any other hardware in the imaging workflow. Thus, there is probably some commonality in issues and questions that come up with respect to the two. >I'm wary of jumping in >with a reinvention of epson_inkjet because that list required industrial >scale servers and bandwidth to sustain its traffic levels. Besides there already is an Epson Printers list on Yahoo Groups which has a subscriber list larger than the old Leben Epson Inkjet list as well as several specialty lists dedicated to black and white inkjet printing anD Epson Wide Format Inkjets. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] List future OK, here's how I see it. 1. This list, like all lists, has a natural lifespan. A bit like a sun past-its-best-by-date, it's now becoming a red dwarf. It'll probably be a black hole in 10 years. 2. It's still useful to have a dedicated reference forum in one place, for as long as there are filmscanners around. Even if traffic is negligible, it may be tomorrow that any of us needs the conduit to the expertise of others. 3. It suits me fine that it's quiet, less admin, no bandwidth problems, little cost:) 4. Lists tend to be most useful when precisely focussed and not polluted with OT wibble and squabbles about OT wibble. Widening the scope of this list would only dilute that utility and risk driving away those who don't share precisely the same interests, thereby diluting the usefulness of this list for its primary purpose. If lists aren't useful, people leave. 5. Yes, it's absolutely true that dig.imaging is like the Chinese proverb: you lift one blade of grass and up comes the whole field. And it's huge. So it's a struggle to keep any list within sensible bounds, as what starts out as a question about funny colour can instantaneously explode in 15 different directions, ranging from film technology to lab standards, to scanners, software, technique, monitors and calibration, colour management, and print technologies, inksets, profiling yada yada Any one of those single topics is a PhD level career for someone, and a busy list. 6. Given that I don't want to dilute this list, I am prepared to star
[filmscanners] RE: Revive this list?!
> Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of > them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, > including actual practice - are still around. Flattery will get you everywhere you smooth talker you; but on these sorts of lists flattery will only get you in trouble. :-) First, I make no claims to being a guru of any sort. I have just been around for a while and been on many lists; thus, I am at best a compendium of the things that I picked up for being on all these lists for a while from others wiht not training, technical knowledge, and expertise than I. > But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has > done a superior job of maintaining it. Second you are right it is Tony's list; and he is the one who has to decide if he wants to continue it, if he wants to expand its focus and how? > What do you think? Can it be done and be useful? I think so, but > ultimately, I am not the one doing it. I think that the traffic on the list has dwindled for a number of reasons. (1). Tony has given other interests and concerns of his priority over the list, which he has every right to do but which may have resulted in some neglect of list housekeeping operations. (2). Tony has had problems with servers and ISPs during the course of the list's history, which has resulted in the list being down or having problems on ocassion withthe consequence that subscribers may have thought that the list had gone defunct. (3). The amount of film scanning has decreased as more and more photographers have turned to digital cameras which has resulted in fewer persons being attracted to a group dedicated to the topic of film scanning alone. (4). Finally, many of the older subscribers to the list may have burned out or gotten tied of answering the same old qustions over and over, responding to the same old requests for information or problems over and over, or engaging in intermurial food fights which other list members (usually newcomers to the list) who regard the list not as an online community but as a technical assistance businesslike forum where everything needs to be on topic and fit their conception of what they thought the group was or should provide them. Keeping this in mind, I think that the group might survive if it expands it focus to include capturing images using both scanners and digital cameras; but expanding it to other areas of imaging that take place later in the wrokflow might make for to broad and unfocused a group, which would result in too diverse a subscriber base leading to much complaining and dissatisfaction. There are plenty of generic and specialty lists on the internet that cover those aspects of imaging and little need for another. However, if one were to expand the subject matter covered by the list to include capturing and digitalizing images with film scanners and digital camera, I would think that one would want to change the name to reflect the new scope of the list. I have no favorites when it comes to names for the newly expanded list. But wahtever scope and name is selected by Tony, the list will have to be promoted by Tony and subscribers alike on other related and tangential lists so that others will know about the change in the list's name and scope as well as about the existence of the list if one expects to generate new subscribers and expand the subscriber base. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Laurie, > > Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would > have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. > We don't have to duplicate Phil Askey, but I would love to know what > actual experience is with different digital cameras - is the canon > Mark II really that good, on one hand. At the other end, is there a > realistic alternative to Epson 2200 or 4000? What if one is willing > to give up a little, then is there something (I doubt it, but...). > > I read statements that there are software packages that are superior > - especially faster - than Photoshop, really? > > How about just "Digital Imaging"? Or "Digital Imaging Techniques"? > Perhaps to broad, but many of the discussions here were that broad > just 6 months ago. > > But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has > done a superior job of maintaining it. He has to be willing to have > this change take place. If it is done well, it is conceivable that > the list will mushroom and while I am willing to help in any way, I > am in California... > > People who handle lists, like this one, well, are not common. I've > been on and left other lists, they become time consuming without > informing. The only other one I've stayed with is the Yahoo Yamaha > FJ list. It too is well maintained and has drawn some real gurus - > that is what makes it work
[filmscanners] RE: Revive this list?!
Maybe, the name of the group should be changed to Image Capturing and Digitalization Techniques. :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has > helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I > know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this > list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable > assistance to me. > > I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to > digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I > still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and > distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a > manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. > Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. > I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in > my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. > > I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been > informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help > revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. > > Please, keep up the good work, > > Jim Sims > > Brad Davis wrote: > >> Tony, >> >> First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of >> his difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to >> you might be useful. >> >> Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so >> kindly sent me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this >> list die, it has been too good to just let it disappear - especially >> when much of the expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all >> along the process of digital photography. Other lists that are >> supposed to deal with various topics are usually too limited - >> either to a certain manufacturer, or software vendor, or the >> material they deal with lacks the depth that I know I need. The >> people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know the >> answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and >> there are several others who are as good and in some cases better. >> My suggestion is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. >> I would be willing to help by shilling for the list on other venues. >> >> Hope we can keep it going. >> >> Brad >> >> >> Hi Brad, >> I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my >> return email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the >> return address, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried >> to contact Tony Sleep (the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message >> is also returned. Would you please forward this to filmscanners for >> me? Thanks. >> >> I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree >> that the expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at >> the responses from the experts on the list regarding the amount of >> time that these people have taken to help others. I believe that is >> part of the problem, however. Sooner or later you just can't keep >> doing it. New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn >> what the professionals on this list know. >> >> Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up >> to Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like >> that area added as well. I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his >> view of filmscanners and what he would like to do with it. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates >> to all aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and >> printing than I have found anywhere. The level of intelligence here >> has been several orders of magnitude above any other imaging list >> I¹ve been on. >> >> Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², >> letting it grow to include discussions of various software from >> Lasersoft and Vuescan through various programs like PS (I saw a note >> elsewhere that asserted that a Lasersoft product is better than PS >> I think that was what was claimed) through specific printing >> programs. >> >> There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David >> Littleboy and many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now >> and then) to just let it go. I know that other lists exist, but the >> chaff is often so thick, and the wheat so sparse that I despair. >> That wasn¹t true here, ev
[filmscanners] RE: Minolta 5400 & Photoshop CS: best way toscan
> Yes, I'm not talking about these functions. Then exactly what fundtions are you talking about? Resizing or resampling functions? Crop functions? Color corections or contrast and brightness adjustments? If these are what you are referring to, then I think one is better off doing them in Photoshop than in the scanner software. >> 3. With respect to color negative, scanner software frequently has >> facilities to remove the orange masking from color negatives which >> is not possible in the case of programs like Photoshop. > > Well, I've removed it in Photoshop. Well, I suppose it is possible; but I have never been very successful removing the orange masking with Photoshop. What I have been able to do has always been more trouble than using the scanner software to do it. It can be further complicated in that not all color negative films have the exact same kind or color of masking; not to mention that a raw scan will give that orange masking in a reversed color since raw scans do not change the negative data into positive data. But if you find that it works for you to use Photoshop to do this function, then so be it. Who am I to argue. :-) >> In addition, I would use 16 bit linear or raw scans for the scanning >> of positive transparancies but not with color negatives since the 16 >> bit scan does not permit one to eliminate the effect of the color >> negative's orange masking from the outputted file. > > See above. The problem is that a 16 bit linear raw scan of a color negative is exported as is to Photoshop without being reversed or having the mask removed. This means that you first have to remove the unreversed film mask before you can reverse the negative into a positive image to do the other corrections. If you do not, then the positive image will have all its colors effected by varying color casts produced by the masking during the reversal processing in Photoshop in often undertermined or undiscernable ways which makes color correction and adjustments a real bear. When you reverse the raw scan all the hues will be turned into their opposites. However, since the negative colors are not pure reds, greens, etc. but are reds plus the orange mask, greens plus the oragne mask, etc., the resulting output will not be the true original capture colors on the negative unless you remove the mask before you reverse the image. > My guesses, and I'd love responses, of the Minolta software settings > so to get a 'raw' type scan are: > > - 16bit linear (vs 16 bit)...and if you know the difference, let me know, 16 bit linear is an uncorrected 16 bit raw scan whereas 16 bit is a 16 bit scan that has had some adjustments made to its histogram so as not to produce an actual raw scan per se. If you want a true raw scan use the linear. On second thought maybe I have it reversed? :-) > - don't know about about autoexposure vs manual, Like auto focus leave it at autoexposure unless you experience a problem. > - autofocus unless there's a problem > - don't know about multi-sampling I am not sure you can use this feature for a raw scan. I suppose it would depend on the software version ( my Minolta version does not even offer it; but Vuescan does but not with a raw scan in my version of Vuescan ) > - don't know about color matching output space (adobe RGB?) and ICC profiles > - Color neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in PS? > - B/W neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in PS? In my opinion both should be scanned as negatives when possible; but frequently a raw 16 bit lnear scan will not let you scan fil in any other way except as a positive which will have to be inverted elsewhere > - Fuj chromes: no idea These are positive films and should be scanned as positives without reversal > - ICE on, at least with color neg. > - Grain dissolver off with color neg, don't know with b/w neg Us ICE as needed for scratches and dust on color or chromogenic black and white films only since it will not work well on silver halide black and white films where the silver will block the infared rays from passing thorugh the film. It will result in extended scan times and may not be able to be used on raw scans. Use grain dissolver as needed for both color and B&W films, although it might be more effective on B&W silver halide films than on color or chromogenic films. However, like ICE it may not be able to be used with raw scans. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 1. Many scanner software permits the user to do multi-pass scans >> which may enable one to capture additional detail in the shadow >> areas of positive films or the highlight areas of negative films. >> 2. Many scanner software packages have digital ICE3 provisions >> which rely on the scanner's hardware based infrared channel, which >> would otherwise not be available from progframs like Photoshop. > > Yes, I'm not talking about these functions. These things are good, > and the multi-pass scan is a hardware fu
[filmscanners] RE: Minolta 5400 & Photoshop CS: best waytoscan
There are several things that film scanner software do whiich are difficulat if not impossible to do with post scanner image editing programs such as Photoshop. 1. Many scanner software permits the user to do multi-pass scans which may enable one to capture additional detail in the shadow areas of positive films or the highlight areas of negative films. 2. Many scanner software packages have digital ICE3 provisions which rely on the scanner's hardware based infrared channel, which would otherwise not be available from progframs like Photoshop. 3. With respect to color negative, scanner software frequently has facilities to remove the orange masking from color negatives which is not possible in the case of programs like Photoshop. In addition, I would use 16 bit linear or raw scans for the scanning of positive transparancies but not with color negatives since the 16 bit scan does not permit one to eliminate the effect of the color negative's orange masking from the outputted file. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ed, > > I think what I'm trying to get at is: Given a person with good > Photoshop > skills, is it an easier path to simply scan the neg in and modify it > in > Photoshop vs tweaking it in the scanning program and modifying it > with the > scan software? > > I'm coming from the viewpoint that the scanning software, be it > Minolta's, Silverfast Ai, or vuescan, just is doing a crappier job of > modifying the > file POST scan, just as I could do with Photoshop in a better way. > I've read reports to that effect. > > So, I'm asking if either of the above software packages modify > anything PRE > scan. If they don't, then: > > - does it matter what software package you use with the 5400, > > - what is the best setting to get the neg (both color and bw) scanned > (16 > bit, 16 bit linear, positive, whatever). > > Best, > > -David Ray Carson > web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ > > >> >> >> At 01:46 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote: >>> Ok, my head is swimming here. I've read elsewhere that the Minolta >>> 1.1.5 software (actually, any software, silverfast and vuescan too) >>> just modifies the scan at the software level, not the hardware >>> level. I'm talking about 'exposure compensation' tab and 'image >>> correction tab.' >>> >>> Also, for background, I'm a very competent Photoshop user, and I >>> don't have a problem modifying the scan with PS levels, curves, >>> hue, etc. I'm a newbie at scanning. So, my question to you guys is >>> what is the best way (fastest, highest quality file) to use the >>> 5400, especially with color neg: >>> >>> - scan in 16 bit color neg, or >>> >>> - scan in 16 bit linear color neg, or >>> >>> - scan in as color positive, either 16 bit or 16 bit linear >>> >>> - And what about black and white film? >>> >>> - Will either of the two commercial scanning software packages >>> (silverfast or vuescan) give me better results if you look at my >>> premise? >>> >>> I just can't seem to find the resources anywhere for these >>> questions. Will the resultant file be a sort of 'digital neg' in >>> the same fashion a RAW file is for digital cameras? >>> >>> I figure since PS CS can manipulate 16 bit files, it's faster and >>> easier for me to adjust things like color balance, leves, etc in PS >>> rather than dither away my time in whatever scanning software I'm >>> using. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -David Ray Carson >>> web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/ >>> >>> > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Screen calibration (was: RE: not enough memory?=
Yes there are a number of tools out there for calibrating and profiling monitors; but most of them do not work very well on consumer flat screen monitors; they work best on CRTs. Similarly, making an accurrate custom printer profile is not as easy as it may seem. The programs you mention can create satisfactory printer profiles if you are not too exacting or too demanding; but more often than not, users have not been all that satisfied with the results as compared to the use of canned generic profiles produced by the printer manufactures or the paper manufacturers. Many have said that the additional benefits of using such consumer methods based on scanners are not worth the time and trouble. Moreover, scanner based profiling often meeans that you scanner has to be calibrated and profiles as a spearate device for the end result to be close to accurate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Subject: [filmscanners] Screen calibration (was: RE: not enough > memory?= > > > Hi there is a tool called "Profile Mechanic - Monitor" which can > calibrate a monitor for 179 USD. Personally I use a "Colorvision > Monitor Spyder with OptiCal för PC & Mac" which is around 300 USD, > here in Sweden. > > Regarding printer profiles there are probably prepared profiles for > your printer. Making your own profile may not be that hard. There are > some "el cheapo" tools for that to. You need an Q60 target > (http://www.targets.coloraid.de), a flatbed scanner and Vuescan Pro. > > Check here: > http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc6.htm#topic5 > http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc7.htm#topic6 > > A good program for adjusting digital images is: > Picture Window Pro, at www.dl-c.com, PC-only. > > A certified toolchain is much more expensive. > > Regards > > Erik > > Wednesday 14 July 2004 20.21 skrev Laurie Solomon: >> First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing >> in the $1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and >> profileing the monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer >> models of flat panel displays tend not to lend themselves to >> calibrating and profiling with the prosumer monitor calibration and >> profiling programs and devices on the market today, which work best >> with CTRs. The problem is that the color shifts on flat panel >> displays as one changes one's viewing angle; and the current >> prosumer calibrating and monitoring programs and devices cannot get >> an accurrate measure off of them. >> >> Second, I am not all that familiar with Photoshop Elements enough to >> say what it has and can do versus Photoshop; but Photoshop Elements >> was neither designed nor intended for professional use by >> photographers or artists. It was intended to compete with the >> hobbyist consumer level image editiing programs on the market. I >> would assume that it does not have many of the color management >> features of Photoshop since it was targeted to those who intend to >> merely edit and print theriown image files for themselves and for >> distribution via web mostly and via print occassionally to others >> and not for those who demand accurrate color management between >> multiple users and systems such as those who produce images for >> printing on commercial presses or for sale in galleries. >> >> Thirdly, generic monitor profiles typically come from the monitor >> manufacturer and not Adobe; and generic printer profiles usually >> come from the printer manufacturer and are based on use of their >> inks and papers only. Custom monitor profiles are generally done >> either by the user or a custom profile maker for a specific brand >> and model monitor; but their quality will vary depending on if the >> monitor is a CRT or a flat panel and will need to be reularly >> updated as the monitor ages over time if the monitor is a CRT. For >> printers, custom profiles ordinarily are made professionally by >> third partys and are based and dependent on the specific paper and >> ink combinations being used. Each change in inks (and sometimes ink >> lot) or media will necessitate its own profile. ICC profiles are >> merely made using ICC standards; but they work the same as any other >> type of profile. >> >> Welcome to the wide world of high tech where nothing is simple, >> nothing of quality is turnkey, and only in the world of advertising >> hype are things push button automated. Now for the less demanding >> who are willing to compromise and accept merely satisfactory quality >> and color management, some semblance of autopmation and turnkey >> operation is available; but not for the demandi
[filmscanners] RE: Printing and color management
> Printers and monitors have different "gamuts" that is color ranges > they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect > light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors > on screen and paper. Correct. Printers and monitors also have different color spaces as well as ranges and transmissive and reflective qualities; printers use CYMK color spaces and monitors use RGB color spaces. > As far as I can understand there are a couple of advantages of using > managed color for nonprofessionals. > > 1) Consistency > 2) Correct colors in images, not distorted by monitor settings You might also add that for those who want to share image files with others (who are on color managed systems using calibrated monitors, it allows everyone to get the same output - a type of consistency but different than the sort of consistency one talks about within a specific system where one is doing one's own printing and not sharing files per se. > I'm using Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) as image manipulation > program, which gives me more setting than Adobe Photo Shop Elements. > In PWP you can assign a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the > picture will look like when printed. I won't say that this preview is > entirely correct, but it certainly gives a hint of the cahnges > introduced when printing. If using "lcms" color engine PWP will also > be able to show which colors are out of gamut, this option is not > available with the Windows color engine. Cannot speak for Photoshop Elements since I use Photoshop CS, but the full Photoshop does offer all the settings you speak of and also "soft proofing" which is the name for "a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the picture will look like when printed." Photoshop also shows what is "out of gamut" and is available for windows. I do not know Picture Window Pro; but I am sure that there are some less expensive consumer image editing programs out there which also furnish all or most of the features that you speak of and do it for windows. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Subject: [filmscanners] Printing and color management > > > Hi! > > I just tought about writing down some thoughts about printing and > color. > > Printers and monitors have different "gamuts" that is color ranges > they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect > light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors > on screen and paper. > > As far as I can understand there are a couple of advantages of using > managed color for nonprofessionals. > > 1) Consistency > 2) Correct colors in images, not distorted by monitor settings > > I'm using Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com) as image manipulation > program, which gives me more setting than Adobe Photo Shop Elements. > In PWP you can assign a proofing profile, so it can simulate what the > picture will look like when printed. I won't say that this preview is > entirely correct, but it certainly gives a hint of the cahnges > introduced when printing. If using "lcms" color engine PWP will also > be able to show which colors are out of gamut, this option is not > available with the Windows color engine. > > Here is what I'm doing when printing, on my Canon i9950. > > 1) Choose printer setting > 2) Go into manual > 3) Leave everything as default (as I use original profiles) > 4) In PWP:s printer dialog I set the printer profile that came with > my printer for the paper I'm using. > 5) Print > > This works pretty good for me. > > Regards > > Erik --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 7/16/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing in the $1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and profileing the monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer models of flat panel displays tend not to lend themselves to calibrating and profiling with the prosumer monitor calibration and profiling programs and devices on the market today, which work best with CTRs. The problem is that the color shifts on flat panel displays as one changes one's viewing angle; and the current prosumer calibrating and monitoring programs and devices cannot get an accurrate measure off of them. Second, I am not all that familiar with Photoshop Elements enough to say what it has and can do versus Photoshop; but Photoshop Elements was neither designed nor intended for professional use by photographers or artists. It was intended to compete with the hobbyist consumer level image editiing programs on the market. I would assume that it does not have many of the color management features of Photoshop since it was targeted to those who intend to merely edit and print theriown image files for themselves and for distribution via web mostly and via print occassionally to others and not for those who demand accurrate color management between multiple users and systems such as those who produce images for printing on commercial presses or for sale in galleries. Thirdly, generic monitor profiles typically come from the monitor manufacturer and not Adobe; and generic printer profiles usually come from the printer manufacturer and are based on use of their inks and papers only. Custom monitor profiles are generally done either by the user or a custom profile maker for a specific brand and model monitor; but their quality will vary depending on if the monitor is a CRT or a flat panel and will need to be reularly updated as the monitor ages over time if the monitor is a CRT. For printers, custom profiles ordinarily are made professionally by third partys and are based and dependent on the specific paper and ink combinations being used. Each change in inks (and sometimes ink lot) or media will necessitate its own profile. ICC profiles are merely made using ICC standards; but they work the same as any other type of profile. Welcome to the wide world of high tech where nothing is simple, nothing of quality is turnkey, and only in the world of advertising hype are things push button automated. Now for the less demanding who are willing to compromise and accept merely satisfactory quality and color management, some semblance of autopmation and turnkey operation is available; but not for the demanding professional, commercially targeted, or high end operation. This is why many of the professional high end big operations need to maintain professional technical experts on staff to keep the digital workflow going smoothly and with some efficiency not to mention accurrately. This was also the case in the old analog world once one got into the professional and commercial operations. Photo labs had to run daily test runs to make sure that everything was calibrated and up to quality levels some times two times a day. Printing press operatiors would have to constantly tweak the presses. Artists would constantly test paints and medium to make sure that what they gat was what they wanted and would work together. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > on 7/13/04 7:54 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> on 7/13/04 8:47 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Berry, >>> >>> That's a question to toss to the folks at Adobe. Unless you're >>> doing real critical work, you probably don't need the profiles >>> (sounds like heresy, I know). Getting custom profiles done can be >>> an expensive proposition. >>> >>> Bernie >>> >>> Berry Ives wrote: >>> Here is Epson's response: > Photoshop Elements has a certail level of color control built in > to the application but i not advanced enough to handle the full > capabiities of ICC profiles. Photoshop Elements 2 has slightly > more support, but the full range of features and ways to apply > the profiles is not available in the Elements version of > Photoshop. To use the ICC profiles correctly, you would need to > be useing certified ICC profiiles in conjunction with a program > that is certified to handle ICC profiles. > > So this would mean that I would need to upgrade to the full PS. Has anyone else used ICC profiles with Elements? On a Mac or PC? Berry >> >> Hi Bernie, >> >> Frankly, I don't know how to ask the folks at Adobe anything. They >> have a useless forum where there is a lot of chatter about all kinds >> of details that the software folks should have automated long ago in >> my opinion. >> >> You go to the profiles area, and you have one option for Macs: >> download a >> 4.2MB thing that may have nothing that I need. There is no info or >> selectivity provided ab
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
Bob, I would only add a qualifier to one statement you have made. You say: "OR, you can do it the manual way by using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the prints more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, or b." My qualification is that this manual method will only work if you are only printing yourown image files but will not work if and when yo try to share those files with others unless you also send them the saved file containing those slider settings and the other person also uses a similar Epson printer model that uses the same printer drivers. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Berry, > > If you are going to be swapping images files with others or sending > images off to a printer, then the first thing you must do is > profile/calibrate your monitor. Otherwise what you see on your > monitor will not be the same as what anyone else will see with the > same image. The Eyeone display unit or the Colorvision spyder are > both 'cheap' units for calibrating monitors. Then you have to > calibrate your printer to match your profiled monitor. That can > either be done by getting/making/buying printer profiles (but to use > these it seems you need full Photoshop or another cheaper package > that handles printer profiles. OR, you can do it the manual way by > using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the > prints more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, > or b. When you get the prints matching your monitor, you save those > printer settings for that paper. > > If you are never going to swap image files, you don't have to profile > your monitor, you can simply alter the printer driver settings until > the prints match your monitor, and then save them. Making sure that > you don't change your monitor settings after this. > > Bob Frost. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Berry Ives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I am really pissed at how hard it is to do just this simple thing: > > -using a Mac G4 with adequate memory > -using a Mac flat panel monitor > -using PS Elements > -using an Epson 2200 > -using a standard Epson paper > > to make the image on the screen match the printed image. Now, is > that so bad? > > All of that, one would think, would have been easily automated by > now. But instead, I am asked to buy $600 software from Adobe, or a > few hundred to develop custom profiles (for standard products) or > various and other sundry gyrations. You know, I am a photo artist, > not a GD computer jock, and frankly, all the computereze stuff bores > me to hell. > > Sorry to dump, but why is this so hard? I don't even know really if > buying the full PS will solve this simple task. What do you think? > > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
>> What do you mean by "read the manual"? [:~[:~[:~]] Just being cute in an attempt to keep things on the light side while informing you that I am a male. There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. There has to be one, although it may not be called that. If there is not one, where are the files that are sent to the printer stored while they are being feed to the printer and after they have been processed by the printer driver? If there is no spooler and the file is sent directly from the program to the printer or from the printer driver to the printer, the printer will chock on the overrun because the hardware buffer in the printer itself is relatively small and can only hold a limited amount of data before it chocks and crashes. Ok, it sounds as if you have a single drive with one partition. Since you have said that you have run a defragmenting program on that drive and 18 GB of free and available hard drive storage space, it seems as though lack of free and unfragmented space is not the problem. Now that I am sure that we are using the same language and talking about the same thing I have to admit that I am at a loss for solutions and you may have to speak with someone familiar with Macs. Have you called Epson about the problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > on 7/11/04 4:41 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) >> >> First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and >> if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions >> is each broken down into and what size are they? >> >> Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how >> much of the space in that partition is empty or free? >> >> Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and >> see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete >> them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files >> that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. >> >> Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us >> oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had >> any temporary files in it. >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Laurie, > > What do you mean by "read the manual"? [:~[:~[:~]]] > > There is no printer spooler folder on a Mac. > > I don't have multiple hard drives or partitions...unless those > partitions are kept blissfully hidden away by the Mac OS. > > I'm now going to try to print something of the same size etc without > using the new profiles. > > Merci, > > Berry > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-) First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken down into and what size are they? Second, how large is the partition that contains your OS; and how much of the space in that partition is empty or free? Third, locate the folder that contains the printer spooler files and see if there are any temporary files in that folder; if so delete them since they are probably orphaned temporary files of old files that were sent to the printer and are not now needed. Report back with the information concerning 1 and 2; and let us oknow if you located the OS's printer spooler folder and if it had any temporary files in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > on 7/11/04 9:57 AM, Bernie Kubiak at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Berry, >> >> I use a PC and from time to time have had problems with the Epson >> 2100/2200 drivers which I've solved simply by deleting then >> reinstalling the driver, downloading it from the Epson site. (Crude >> but effective). The "color managed workflow" instructions that Epson >> publishes simply makes reference to Photoshop (not Elements). Since >> things worked before you installed the profiles, you may wish to go >> back to square one and see if that makes a difference. >> >> Bernie >> >> >> Berry Ives wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the responses, although I still have not solved the >>> problem. >>> >>> The 1440dpi is a printer quality, not image file related. Sorry >>> about the ambiguity. I usually try to stick to ppi when referring >>> to the image file. >>> >>> I have 18 GB of unused hard drive space, and 180 MB of available >>> RAM over and above what is used by Mac OS 9.1 and PS Elements, the >>> only open application. Now I will try turning virtual memory on at >>> 990 MB. >>> >>> I get back...have to restart the Mac. >>> >>> Thanks again ~Berry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> - - >> -- >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) >> in the message title or body > > I'm not sure what to think about Laurie's info, since the operating > system of a Mac is quite different from PC's. I think I would need a > Mac person who knows more than I do to read her post and explain. > > But I did try re-installing the printer driver and that had no effect. > > Thanks again for all the suggestions...I'll think about it some more > later. > > ~Berry > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: not enough memory?
I am not familiar with how things work on Macs; but you might want to check the hard drive partition on which you have your operating system and printer spooler to make sure that it is unfragmented and that there is enough empty unused unfragmented space on that partition. You might want to run a defragmenting program on that partition. I would also suggest that 320 MB of hardware RAM is not really a whole lot of actual Physical RAM on the the Motherboard for graphics; you might want to turn the virutal memory back on. I would assume that with the OS using some of the RAM, and Elements using some of that RAM, and other possible programs trunning in background using some of that RAM, you may not have enough actual physical RAM left over to spool the file to the printer driver and then to the printer. Remember that the printer spooler will be using a copy of the file which will be in addition to the temporary copy of the file being used by Elements and the original archived file stored on the hard drive. If Elements works at all like Photoshop, the temporary version it uses will be stored in the scratch disk; but it may have to use actual hardware RAM if you have a small scratch disk or one that has run out of enough available unfragmented storage space on the hard drive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, if there's anybody out there. > > I have a problem using PS Elements 1.0. I know there is a list for > PS, but maybe one of you folks can make this easy. > > I have a scanned image that is 17.6 MB. I am trying to print it on > an Epson 2200, 13x19 @1440dpi. I am getting an error after the > printer driver has initiated, prior to anything actually going out to > the printer, saying that there is not enough memory for this > operation, and to close any unused applications. > > There are no other applications open except for the Mac Finder. I > have over 180 MB of unused memory available on my Mac G4, with a > total of 320 MB of hardware RAM. Virtual memory is off, but it > shouldn't be needed, and I have not needed it before. I have set the > preferred allocation of memory for PS Elements to 120 MB (it was at > 44 MB, but I upped it just to be sure that was not an issue.) > > Am I correct in assuming that the size of the file that is being > transmitted to the printer is 17.6 MB, which is the actual image file > size on the hard drive, and the same as reported in Elements? > > So what has changed? I added some Epson 2200 profiles that I > downloaded from Epson, and I changed a setting or two in the print > setup in PS Elements. But why should any of that matter? I have > printed larger files on 13x19 before, so I am stumped. Any ideas? > > Berry > > > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 6/25/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 6/25/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Good $300 scanner for 35mm & 120?
Actually Art, what you say is only true when talking about new dedicated medium format film scanners. There may be athe possibility of a few older models available in or around that price range as used or refurb units on Ebay or elsewhere. Ken should check Ebay as well as some of the larger used equipment web sites like WWW.keh.com, www.calumetphoto.com, www.bhphotovideo.com, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ken McKaba wrote: > >> I've just started exploring film scanners. Can anyone recommend a >> good one that will handle 35mm & 6x6 that is <$300? >> >> Will I be happy with a flatbed with a transparency attachment? >> > > The question, Ken, is what other choice do you really have witin the > constraints you suggest. > > A 35mm dedicated film scanner for $300 you can do (the Minolta Dimage > Scan Dual IV would probably be my suggestion at that price) but, it > can't do 6x6. In fact, anything that can in a dedicated film scanner > is going to set you back considerably more than $300. > > Therefore, the option open to you is a flatbed. Epson has several > within your budget and some are quite good. The biggest issue these > days is probably Newton Rings from film contacting the glass surface. > It can be a bit of a problem, but there are ways around it vis well > constructed film carriers. > > Art > > >> Thanks, >> Ken >> >> > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) If your remarks are based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I was only extrapolating from the orgianal statement of the analogy by the preious poster using their language and argument structure. If you are referrign to other elements in my comentary, please go on and tell me more. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Laurie, > >> Also I believe that if >> your analogy was correct, the 2000 dpi would represent a halftone >> cell consisting of two dots while the 4000dpi would be a halftone >> cell with 4 dots, such that there would be 2000 cells per inch (or >> 4000 halftone dots per inch) versus 4000 cells per inch (or 16000 >> halftone cells per inch). > > I must apologize up front for not reading the whole thread, but I just > wanted to point out that perhaps where you said "two dots", you > actually meant 2x2 dots, or 4 dots, and where you said "4 dots", you > actually meant 4x4 dots, or 16 dots...while you seem to be showing > this relationship (halftone cells are typically two dimensional) with > your "per inch" statement. > > Sorry for butting in, carry on ;-) > > Regards, > > Austin > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
If I understand what you are saying, I think that I cannot agree with your explanation. Your analogy appears to be confounding halftone dots with halftone cells. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that either translate one-to-one into pixels or into samples. Also I believe that if your analogy was correct, the 2000 dpi would represent a halftone cell consisting of two dots while the 4000dpi would be a halftone cell with 4 dots, such that there would be 2000 cells per inch (or 4000 halftone dots per inch) versus 4000 cells per inch (or 16000 halftone cells per inch). First, technically there is a difference between dpi which is usually used in reference to resolution in terms of halftone dots or cells per line per inch ( or lpi -lines per inch in printing press terms) on a printed page versus ppi which is used with regards to pixels which typically refer to resolutions in terms of picture elements in a monitor display versus spi or samples per inch which refers to resolutions in terms of the number of samples captured by a capture device such as a scanner or digital camera from the original subject. Often and usually wrongly, these measures and terms are used interchangabley as if they were identical or equivalent to one another. Second, the key factor in determining the quality and equivalance of scanner resolutions is the difference between the native optical resolution of the scanner (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch) and interpolated resolutions or software generated resolutions of the scanner (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch). The former comprises the actual scanner resolution as opposed to some mathematically generated derivative of the actual resolution. Third, with respect to output resolutions and the original question, the quality of a scanner and its output is as much determined by the bit depth of the scanner ( i.e., the dynamic range of tone that the scanner can capture and recognize and the capacity of the scanner to recognize tonal distinctions within that dynamic range and discern or differentiate those distinctions from noise) and the quality of the scanners design, sensors, and hardware componets as by the optical resolution if it capable of capturing and out putting at. Thus, the stated resolution differences between scanners may be irrelvant in terms of the quality of the output. Furthermore, the amount of resolution needed to do a quality capture and output will depend on the size and type of original that is being scanned as well as the pruposes to which the scan is being used. For example, one does not need as much resolution for reflective originals as for transmissive originals or for large originals as opposed to small originals. To use a scanner to scan an 8x10 sheet of film at 4000spi is overkill unless, for instance, one is going to enlarge the captured image to billboard size or crop out and enlarge into a 16x20 inch image only the head of one person in a large group shot, holding all other scanner spec equal. Fourth, the size of the output resolution, holding other variable constant, becomes important when one is scanning small 35mm originals which will be enlarged 5 or more times full frame upon printing or which will be cropped and enlarged to a size of 5 or more times the size of the 35mm original full frame. Here, you want an optical resolution high enough so that you can enlarge the image size which will effectively reduce the resolution and wind up with an optical resolution of 200 - 300 units (whatever terminology is used to define the units per inch) without resorting to interpolation. Thus, 4000 spi scanner will allow one to enlarge the scanned frame larger without resorting to interpolation (e.g., resampling upward) than would be the case for a 2000 spi, assuming both scanners resolutions are optical resolutions. This would be true for originals whatever their size; but more than 2000 spi may not be needed to scan for instance a medium format frame and 1200spi may not be needed to scan a 4x5 or larger film frame. This is also the case for reflective originals scanned on flatbeds with respect to optimum resolutions in relation to final image sizes; but with respect to quality of scans, anything more than 600-1200 spi for outputs 1-3 times the size of the original is usually unnecessary since the dynamic range of most reflected originals is much narrower than for transmissive originals and details tend to be more blocked up on the extreme ends of the histogram for reflective originals than for transmissive originals. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 01:37 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, you wrote: >> I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying >> to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in >> theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi >> Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say >> 1600 x 2400 pixels? >> >> Or does it si
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
There is no single one size fits all sharpening software; but there are several very good, flexible applications out there which vary in complexity and cost. You can go to www.pixelgenius.com and take a look at Photokit Sharpener, a sharpening program that will work with both 16 bit and 8 bit workflows developed by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Swebe, et al. This program devided sharpening up into three stages: Capture, Editing, and Output with each stage allowing for a variety of sharpening technigues to choose from. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote: >> Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) >> >> My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for >> sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset >> scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of >> downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb >> TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as >> "webmasters" to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from >> the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are >> for web or previewing. >> >> With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or >> contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it >> once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone >> but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this >> enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? >> >> Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding >> PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way? >> >> Thanks! >> Ed Verkaik > > > Well, given your "once" constraint the simple answer is . . . "USM > treatment should be the last thing you do before you save your > otherwise-completely-edited" file to whatever format (presumably JPEG > for online display) you use. > > As for the best one-step USM process: Fred Miranda's IS action for PS > is the "best easy" (i.e., one-step) USM utility that I'm aware of. > And it's reasonably priced. And if you decide to buy it, please use > my site's link to get it, as then I'll receive a modest kickback from > Fred. (All of this money goes directly back into the maintenance of > my site.) You could find that link here: > http://tristanjohn.com/inkstwo.htm > > My first page was devoted to a simple comparison test of the FM IS > action versus the one-shot USM utility offered by Picture Window Pro. > I'm not trying to pick on the latter, but it will give you a good > idea of the difference between USM utilities (the majority) which use > a shotgun approach as opposed to USM techniques which look rather > only (or at least primarily) to the _edges_ of the target image. > > You can find that comparison here: http://tristanjohn.com/USMtest.htm > > Happy sharpening! > > Tris > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon Color Management
I believe that "ICM" does refer to the the color management module that the operating system uses for its system level color management, which in the case of Windows systems, I believe, is the Kodak module that uses the Kodak color management engine as opposed to Mac systems which use Colorsync. The difference in size between .icc and .icm as well as within these two file formats is due to the type of process they use to translate the color figures into color spaces. Smaller profiles use a method that assigns a matrix and number identified points correspondint to the device independent color mode that they used as an intermediary color space while the larger profiles usa a method that relies on actual lookup tables. The difference only tends to effect the size of the profile file and not the outcomes. >> there some other explanation? A possibility in addition to the already mentioned ones is that the fact that Nikon uses LEDs for capture sensors rather than the traditions type of capture sensor may result in some incompatibilities between how traditional .icc profile work when used in traditional scanners and how they work with Nikon scanners so as to require the addition of additional information in the profiles which is specific to Nikon's processing of capture data and its rendering. (just speculation). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ed, > >> The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw >> rookie, I'm > > ICC stands for Internation Color Consortium, ICM doesn't stand for > anything, the "M" is just for "module" I guess, without any > correlation to the "IC". Files with these extensions are both ICC > profiles. I'd prefer .icc as the extension, but .icm is more common. I > think the colour management supplied with Windows 98 upwards uses .icm > as the extension, which sort of establishes .icm as the de-facto > standard. > >> all profiles should be icc. I noticed however, that icm profiles are >> usually 200KB or more, while icc profiles are only 1-4KB. So my >> question > > ICC profiles can vary greatly in size, depending on how many of the > features are used, how deep the look-up tables are, etc. > >> is, is there an inherent difference in icc and icm profiles? I tried >> to > > No. > >> rename my vuescan profile to Nikon's profile name and pasting it >> into the Nikon profile directory. Nikonscan functioned, but the >> resulting output > > No big surprise. The ICC profile format is very generic, and > manufacturers often use it only as a basis for their own > software. Given that, I don't expect Nikonscan to follow the > specifications of the ICC, they just hacked together a driver that > works with their profiles. > >> there some other explanation? If Nikon has a proprietary ICC format >> it would explain why they wouldn't give me any information about >> their profiles, and it would explain why Nikonscan doesn't allow >> custom profiles, because they would be incompatible. > > I think they only support a small subset of ICC profiles, and the ones > created by VueScan (and many other programs) are not among them. > > Hope this helps, > > Andras --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Make sure that they pay for the fat ylu chew; they can afford it. Not a feature that I think you should ask them to creat but a suggestion that you should suggest that they might want to monitor and participate in this list if they do not already so as to facilitate communicatins between users and themselves. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable > to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will > be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. > > I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon > my return. > > Art > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Image quality is a multi-faceted subjective thing that cannot be measured in quantitative terms which is why it is never refered to on spec sheets. Obviously a optical 4000spi scanner will be sharper and have higher resoution than a scanner that is capable of only optical resolutions of less than 4000 spi, all other things being kept equal and constant; but resolution and sharpness is only one aspect of quality with respect to the scanner's capture ability. However, sharpness and resolution per se are not really all that important if one is outputting to the web or to prints that are small wallet and snapshot size since the size and means of electronic presentation often will mask any lack of sharpness and resolution and provide the appearance of being sharper and having more resolution than it objectively has. Part of the reason 35mm film scanners have increased in their optical resolution capabilities is because the size of the 35mm film frame is typically enlarged in size significantly as compared to medium and large format films as well as most reflective printed materials that are scanned on flatbeds. By being able to scan at optical resolutions of 4000 spi, the capture can be resized to about 8 times its original size and still maintain an acceptible optical resolution without requiring any interpolation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > >I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in > the >image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. > > Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was > if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted > image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being > equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right > now & I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would > like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be > able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size? > Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi. > > Thanks, > Bill > > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
I am not sure about this, but it is quite possible that this is a result of using LED based scanners, such as the Nikon, on silver halide films; it also might be a side effect of trying to use digital ICE silver halide films - if you happen to have this feature turned on. As I said, I am speculating. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi List: > > I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX > black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o > k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl > ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I > can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to > cope with this? thank you! > > Thanks, > JM Shen > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Art, I really am not trying to pick on you (ok, yes I am); scanners techically measure resolution in terms of samples per inch or spi. Thus, Your correction below is wrong. "That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution" It is really 4000 spi and not ppi. > But yes, the file size grows 4x if > the scanner resolution is doubles, assuming the same bit depth > capture is used. I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Most color film scanners use a CCD chip which has a series of three > lines across it each with a color filter over it, Red, Green or Blue, > which each are made up of a series of sensors. (Nikon uses a slightly > different method, but I don't want to confuse things). > > That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For > simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5" wide. > That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or > pixels per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was > created would be 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels. > > The film or sensor stage is moved one pixel width per scan cycle until > 6000 cycles (for a 1.5" "long" film frame) are achieved. > > The image is actually projected onto the CCD sensor, so the sensor's > length might be larger or smaller than the film dimensions. > > If the exact same sensor was used in a medium format film scanner, > which had, say a 2" wide film frame, that would be scanned at 2000 > ppi, since the same number of sensors would be reading information > projected on it from a film frame twice as wide. > > I have simplified this process. But yes, the file size grows 4x if > the scanner resolution is doubles, assuming the same bit depth > capture is used. > > Art > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying >> to compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in >> theory produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi >> Brand X scanner, given that the output resolution is the same, say >> 1600 x 2400 pixels? >> >> Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger >> image than the 2000 dpi model? >> >> Thanks for clearing this up, >> Bill >> >> > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Bob, That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus >> that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners >> (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight >> sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, >> additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on >> local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to >> outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once >> prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden >> days of digital's youth. > > Bruce Fraser wrote an article on this three-step sharpening workflow > for Creativepro. In the first stage he employs an interesting use of > layer blending options to limit the extremes in capture sharpening. > > www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html?cprose=4-44 > > Bob Shomler > www.shomler.com > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message > title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Better is a relative term. Generally higher dpi (technically it should be spi or samples per inch and not either dpi, dots per inch, or ppi, pixels per inch) will produce a higher resolution and sharper image than lower amounts of samples per inch. One has to be careful in making comparisons about two main things. First, there is the meaning and accurracy of the specs which the manufacturer gives for their units since different manufacturers use different measurments and critera without making it clear exactly what they are using. And secondly, there is the issue of whether one is using optical resolutions or interpolated resolutions, wherein optical resolutions are th more significant and reliable resolutions when compared to interpolated resolutions. Thus, a 300 spi optical scan may be better than a 600 spi interpolated scan. 1600 X 2400 pixels designates an output size in pixels not a resolution. Resolutions are always stated in terms of x per inch. I realize that Microsoft and others call the moniotr display sizes such as 1600 x 2400 display resolutions but they reallyu are talking about the display size not the reolution per se. The only time the resolution related to display size is when the display is on a monitor as opposed to a print, where the same resolution can produce different sized monitor display images depending on the size of the monitor and the size of the monitor disply it is capable of in terms of pixels. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to > compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in > theory > produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X > scanner, > given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels? > > Or does it simply mean the 4000 dpi scanner will output a much larger > image than the 2000 dpi model? > > Thanks for clearing this up, > Bill > > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Paul, I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as contrasted to localized in the sense that one selects the different elements and selections in the image that oe would want enhanced, leaving the unselected alone. In that sense, it is almost like using the contrast adjustment in Photoshop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From: Ed Verkaik >> >> Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and >> blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark >> areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply >> to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no >> natural "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even >> detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine >> changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try >> to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all >> images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm >> hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. > > Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask > can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its > diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the > usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to > enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too > much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or > Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves > should work fine. > > But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Ëd, I can appreciate your requesting a third fresh opinion and am not chastising you for doing so. My response is based on the fact that clouds, as you suggest, typically are without sharp edges (blurry and fuzzy); but there are some types of clouds and some types of lighting conditions which result in clouds with sharp edges and gradations of corlor or light to dark areas. Given the limitations of scanner and camera design, the scanner or camera will contribute to some decreases in apparent sharpness in general. Those images with soft fuzzy and blurry edges and tonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds themselves or the lighting conditions may not be negatively effected by being left without any sharpening, while those with sharp edges andtonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds and lighting conditions might benefit from sharpening to counter the softening effect fo the scanner and /or camera. Having said that, I do not see how a very mild degree of overall sharpening would be harmful in the former case; but it is unnecessary I would think. Unfortunately there is no typical sky to imagine; there are typical stormy skys, clear skys, hazy skys, skys at sunset, skys at sunrise, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually > seeing the various images. >>> > > Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue > sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas > (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to > such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural > "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. > Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in > contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up > with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, > either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the > experience of others can lead me to a solution. > > Ed Verkaik > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Art, While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a misunderstanding. > A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then > only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. This might more accurrately be states as "...then only sharpen the L or Luminescence channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> >> Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color >> image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that >> before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't >> lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? >> >> Regards, >> >> Austin >> > > > A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then > only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since > the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we > have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is > reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic > principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey > increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the > color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed". > > Art > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
