Re: filmscanners: Prime Film Scanner1800u
Like Art, I can't comment on how easily it sets up on a Mac, but here are 2 sites about it. I suggest visiting both, because they express rather different views..! http://twcny.rr.com/technofile/texts/tec081901.html http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-2295735-404-6525926.html My guess would be if your client: - uses the Zone System and knows the difference between Velvia and Sensia, s/he won't like it much.. - is after nothing more than 7" x 5" prints, and accepts that some images will not scan well, eg underexposed slides, they'll love it! :-) mark t > From: DaleH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: filmscanners: Prime Film Scanner1800u > I'm trying to get a client started in scanning film instead of > drugstore snapshots and wondered if anyone had anything to say about > the Prime 1800u film scanner costing under $200 at CompUSA? > It would be used on a Mac. I don't want to get them involved in buggy > driver or other compatibility issues. > DaleH
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Interface, was Polaroid Insight vs
Yes, the interface is quite usable, and I don't want to end up with another 'pretty' but unfunctional product (not much of a risk of that from Ed, I suspect!). But I do think that Vuescan could use a *bit* of a facelift. Eg, I still find myself hitting Preview, instead of Preview :-) (IOW, I end up doing another scan when I just wanted to flick back to the Preview *tab*..) Perhaps this is all just because our Vuescan wish-list is rather empty, now that Ed has given us separate grain-reduction, fixed the white balance, etc.. All I can think of is making it look a bit nicer, and maybe some new film types. (Ed, do you really have to stick to the Kodak PCD spec..?) I'm one of those loonies who love trying new films, but hates trying to work out which profile fits best if I can't get good results from generic and white balancing. OK, I admit that isn't very often.. :-) mark t > From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." > I have to weigh in on the interface - it may not be top-notch graphics design with >buttons and shortcuts, but it is IMHO extremely functional and easy to use. I don't >need the buttons when I have useful tabs and boxes on the tabs. > > I was up and running with it within an hour as I recall, and the results have >(almost) always been excellent (exceptions are exceptional frames - my fault, or old >film, etc.) > > I am happy with the interface as is. ... This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I encountered this problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get them sharp edge-to-edge on screen.. I ended up buying one of those curved field lenses (I think it's a Leitz?) to suit my Rollei projector, and it gives stunning images. If you have only ever viewed your slides on a mediocre projector/lens, you are definitely missing an experience.. But of course you also quickly find out how critical camera steadiness and lens quality are, as per Rob's comments. :-( > >These problems seem to only apply to quite 'bent' film, eg <> > Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides "curved field" > projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) > mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older "flat > field" design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies.
filmscanners: OT - Playing nice & list rules
May I offer the following selected quotes from Tony Sleep's website, and from another site devoted to list etiquette.. (I don't think this list has a FAQ, but would be happy to be corrected.) And didn't we agree some time ago to put 'OT', for Off-Topic, in front of posts not directly related to filmscanners? >From Tony's site: This list exists for the purpose of:- * discussing purchasing decisions * discussing issues arising from the use of filmscanners * discussing reviews and other material available on WWW disseminating news of new film scanners, drivers and software >From 'list-etiquette.com': Use common sense when posting. Be aware that you always have two options: responding through the list or to a member personally. The content of your message should determine which of these you choose. Don't over-quote. Include only the specific information you're responding to, and chop out the rest. Keep posts to the list brief. If your post doesn't add value, don't send it. (Example: Don't send a "thanks" message through the list. Send something like that directly to the person you're thanking.) Be courteous to other list members. If you disagree with them, fine, just don't resort to personal insults. Consult the list archives, if available, before posting a question. This is also a good way to become familiar with a list's acceptable topics, etc. If you feel the need to flame, send hate mail, or otherwise reprimand another list member, do it off-list. Do not forward virus warnings and the like to a list unless it's devoted to that topic. Respect other people's opinions. If you disagree, do it politely. ... mark t This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
My apologies for clogging bandwidth with a message that doesn't really add any useful information ;-), but I would like to add: 1. Way to go, Dave! There's at least 2 of us who think like that on the list, so I'll happily duck for cover too :). I think we all need to spend a bit more time experimenting, standing back from our output, and not steadfastly sticking to the 'alleged' dpi limitations (both of printed output and scanned input..) and 2. Thanks, RogerMillerPhoto for that *excellent* coverage of the lens/scanner sharpness question.. regards, mark t >From "Dave King" .. > I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs > shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. > > I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for > 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you resolution isn't what > photography is about unless you're a geek! > > Ducking for cover, > > Dave:) This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 - test results
Thanks for your efforts in putting up those samples Tom - it does appear that you get less noise using this method. But it also looks like the extra exposure has blown the highlights pretty badly, so 2 merged exposures would be required. Unless Vuescan's abilities can do it all in one..? Regards, mark t > > From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: filmscanners: Cnaon FS4000 - test results > Date: 05/11/2001 20:40:10 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > If you like please take a look for some results obtained from FS4000. > I have shown influence of exposure control on dark slides scanning, and > results obtained for print films (no correction) and results of FARE activity. > The relevant address: > http://ket5.tuniv.szczecin.pl/tc_www/photo/FS4000/index.html > > Regards > > Tom
Re: filmscanners: OT: Zooms and sharpness, was Website ref.
I would also point out that the site owner refers to the original potential criticism, and I quote: === Many would say that such a consumer grade zoom lens is not real sharp. While it would be nice to see a better lens along with this test, it does show that a zoom lens can do an excellent job. Note resolution test area 3 is far off-axis yet still produces detail needing 4000 to 6000 dpi scans to resolve! The 6000 dpi 35mm scan produces amazingly sharp 19x28 inch prints even at the edge (print at 300 dpi). If the sprintscan 4000 dpi is representative of the detail in the image, it shows the resolving power of the lens + film is on the order of 80 line pairs per mm off axis (4000 dpi/2pxl per line pair/25.4mm per inch=78.7 line pairs/mm). These tests also show that the detail recorded on the very fine grained Fujichrome Velvia film is still limited by film grain, not lens resolution. These tests, the results, and conclusions are consistent with thousands of other images I have obtained with my 35mm and 4x5 systems. === I think remarkably sharp images can be obtained from most 'consumer grade' zooms *at their best aperture*. I base that on viewing Kodachromes projected to about 6ft across (using a very sharp Leitz lens for the projection.. :-) Sure, many 28-whatever zooms have questionable quality, but it is quite easy to see when a slide is sharp and if it is, surely the tests are valid. mt Ron said: > In this context, you are right on Denise. Regards, Ron > - Original Message - > From: "Denise E. Kissinger" > > > The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that > > it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need. > > > > Denise > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very > > interesting > > > reading, > > > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a > > > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens > > > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is > > > plainly ridiculous > > > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a > good > > > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, > > > > > > paul > > > >http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 scanner 'review'
Thanks for that Tom. > > Unit has no eject button which is annoying - > Yes, the partial solution is to switch it on and off, works like eject My concern would be that I would guess turning the scanner on and off needlessly will somewhat reduce its lifespan, and puts needless load on the electronics. Not a big issue, just a silly design decision IMO. > > scan app. Does an awful lot of stuff in memory, so 512K RAM at least > I am using it with 256MB, for one full resolution scan works without disk > swapping (Win2000) Hmm - the test machine was also Win 2000 & 256M, and it did a lot of diskwork - maybe poorly setup..? > >.. more closely, the noise was pretty obvious. > If you are working on underexposed slides you should change exposure by 1 or 2 > stops in FilmGet. In this case you will get normal noise level. So do you mean that the noise level drops, *relative* to shadow detail? The scan I got was not at all washed out from overcompensation for the underexposure, so I (perhaps rashly) assumed that if the exposure was run down far enough to get rid of the noise, too much shadow detail would go with it.. Certainly when I tried to adjust the final image's gamma (post-scan), that's exactly what happened. > I will show on Monday some examples. Look forward to seeing them. :-) Regards, mt This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt Bob wrote: > Is there a reason why this scanner gets so little mention on this list? > If so few people own them, does that say something about the quality of > that product? Based upon normankoren.com and others, one would think this > would be a strong contender in today's market, and the subject of more > messages. This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
I would highly recommend a visit to: http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm if you are interested in questions like 'How many Mp do I need to get to x quality..?' Mr Clark has excellent samples and simulations up to 194 Mp (!) equivalents, and some quite detailed information. As for me, I'm quite surprised at the image quality obtainable from, say, a 3.3 Mp camera if there is so much interpolation going on. Other links on this topic would be appreciated.. mark t Julian said: > > Austin - is this true? Can you show documentation to > > demonstrate? - bec if > > it is true then I am very surprised and have been very badly mislead. > > > > Julian > > > > At 10:42 30/10/01, Austin wrote: > > >Note, when a digital camera claims 6M pixels...that's in fact a flat out > > >lie. It is REALLY 1.5M pixels, with four sensors per pixel...a pixel IS > > >made up of all three RGB components, so it is really misleading > > to make the > > >claims they do. They would be more honest to call it a 6M SENSOR array. > > >How they get 6M pixel OUTPUT is interpolation... This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Austin wrote.. >..I DID stick to the > ball...please point it out...I am interested. I'm away from my normal PC right now, so I can't quote the lines that I felt were getting personal (a convenient cop-out, I know!), but comments like this: '..but I really don't know what more I can explain...and I don't know how much more basic I can get... Sigh.' ..are a bit of a put-down in my book. Perhaps I am just the overly sensitive type, but I would be a bit offended if they were comments directed towards me. Anyway, back to the debate, which I hope isn't getting too off-topic.. > But why IS 9 larger than 4? You didn't explain > why. We have to some basic 'given's', otherwise nothing can be discussed... :-) > Saying a dye cloud has more information content > than A pixel is NOT ambiguous at all, it's just > a fact.. Yes, agreed. But my (and I think Rob's) point is that fact is not of much importance unless you are heading for a useful conclusion, eg saying that 'electronic sensors will never give higher resolution than film.' There are many factors involved in that question, eg over what size area? (Why do we use 6x7 instead of 35mm? - Because of those darned too-big dye clouds, that's why!) And I'm concerned about recording the image, not dye clouds. In the same way that we use larger format films, and smaller dye-clouds as methods to get better images, we can keep reducing the size of the 'pixels', and if we meet a physics limit (or more often an expense limit), then we can increase the area over which that image is recorded. And that *doesn't* necessarily mean huge cameras/lenses, if you think laterally.. > I said that physical limitations prohibit > sensors from being as small as dye > clouds. As above, this is only an issue if you are trying to match up your sensor with some pre-determined film size. > AS I said, these sensors have to get > light to them Which can be bent, magnified, reflected, spread... > and they have to have wires in and out of them hmm. Maybe using current technology they do.. :-) Anyway, as soon as a decent *affordable* 8Mp or better digicam arrives, preferably with interchangable lenses and decent battery life, I'll be jumping ship and only dragging out the film scanner for the 'archives'.. I won't be pining for the days of dye-clouds.. mt This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
(still chuckling :) Thanks for the very refreshing posts, Wire! Makes me glad I came back.. Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11" x 17" 300dpi print on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then take 2 steps backward.. It is generally agreed that your average photolab print is at best 200 dpi, and yet they are quite sharp even under close, say 10", scrutiny. So for an image that will be viewed at 24" or more, 100 dpi may be not only acceptable, but *extremely* acceptable. I agree 240 dpi and up is nice, but I would strongly encourage folk to *try* lower resolutions and decide for themselves. You may find those images you were scared to crop because they would end up with too few pixels, may just be usable after all.. Umm, maybe it is just that your printer doesn't work well at 100 dpi, Austin..? :-)) mark t (quickly ducking for cover!) Earlier, Wire pontificated: > Actually, I'm blind. I was in despair until I found this photography hobby. > Now it's all that keeps me going... > > Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel wide image! I > have standards. > > ... > > OK, the truth is I have very low standards... > > Oh, never mind. I shouldn't have said anything :) > > Wire > > >>> Austin wrote: >.. > > There is absolutely no chance that I can get a "quality" image at 100 ppi > > from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4. I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi > > output that was "nice"... Even 180 is too low, except for the largest of > > images I print. 240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send > > to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably. We obviously > > have different standards is all I can guess. ... This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
Thanks for that Petru - I must have missed that wonderful Tony Sleep contribution :) I too have grave doubts about the Imaging Resource reviews - as Tony says, their comments about never having seen a >2800 dpi scanner and the fact that they were seemingly unaware of grain-aliasing until recently, makes me take their reviews with, er, a large dose of salts.. :) My own ability to extract a good scan has increased in leaps and bounds over the last 2 years so I am very wary of reading into sample scans, even if they are by 'experts'. I reckon you have to use a scanner for quite a while and work hard at extracting the absolute maximum before you can claim to be getting it 'all'. I guess I am now such a cynic I won't believe anybody..! mark t Petru said: > I wouldn't rely too much on imaging-resource's > scanner reviews > PS: if you would like to have a good laugh, see Tony Sleep's message.. > http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners%40halftone.co.uk/msg07350.html This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these options for resizing (OK Austin, 'decimate'!), in order of low to high quality: - nearest neighbour - bi-linear - resample - bicubic My experiments revealed that the first 2 weren't very good (I think they were only there for those with very slow machines), and that the difference between 'resample' (?) and bi-cubic was not much at all. As an interesting non-f-s side issue, I found that the 'resample' method was the most effective in reducing moire effects (those loverly patterns you get when scanning from halftoned images). Note for those getting started in all this, and have no money left after buying the scanner..:) - Thumbs Plus v3.3 (registered) was recently given away on some magazine cover CD's. That version is quite old and is strictly 24-bit I think, but it is the one I still use and it's VERY quick and easy. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand/like the way PS/PSP/PI handle resizing and resolution. You'll still need your image editor for touchups etc but TP does resizing/rotating, cropping, gamma-bright-contrast, RGB color adjustment and some very nifty 'contact-sheet' printing, all *very* simply. mt PS - if you do try version 3.3, when installing tell it to leave its DLL's in the Thumbs folder - I **wish** more progams offered this!! PPS - if you're cheap like me and you can't find the free version, you can still download v3.3 from www.cerious.com. 3.3 doesn't get 'crippled' after 30 days like the new ones. mt David wrote: > One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the > ability to use one of several decimation techniques.. This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: Re: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way
Steve said.. > Save image 25 or 26 and see if you can get anywhere near the processed > example they show you. A quick tip - DON'T try it on the previews, as I checked one of them (the fireman in smoke haze), and it has not got any pixel variation in areas where the processed image shows details! I didn't bother checking the fullsize images. To me, the only clever part is that the software appears to do selective gamma adjustments to areas of the image. However I think the examples are way overdone, especially that awful oversharpening..
