Re: filmscanners: Umax banding
on 7/24/01 9:55 AM, Lynn Allen wrote: Todd won't find this particularly useful, but he wrote: Could giving it a new SCSI ID help? A whack in the head, or a toss out the window? If their Customer Service isn't any better than HP's, any and all of the above are worth trying. Or, I could buy it from you for $3.50 and add it to the stack of used merchandise in my soon-to-open Classic Doorstops Boutique, Inc. ;-) Lynn, This is starting to sound like a very attractive offer! ;-) Todd
Re: filmscanners: The hunt for a scanner for contact-sheets
on 7/13/01 1:39 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: It just strikes me as weird that nobody makes a scanner for doing 35mm/MF contacts a roll at a time. A purpose-built low-spec unit for $300US-ish would sell well, I think. 3-400ppi would be plenty. I have been using an Epson 836XL with transparency adapter for making contact sheets for a while now. It's 800ppi, and tabloid size. I couldn't find anything cheaper or smaller that handled a roll of negatives in ViewFile or PrintFile sheets. It really works very very well. Austin posted this a few weeks ago. I think I'd like to go this route for myself. If any of you happen to know of an Epson 836XL with transparency adapter for sale, I'd be grateful to hear about it. Nothing on ebay... Todd
filmscanners: Umax banding
My Umax 1200s flatbed has developed a nasty banding problem (in spite of plugging it into an isolated circuit breaker). I'm calling it banding, but this might be scans lines. In transmissive mode it is apparent throughout. I'm talking about regularly spaced red lines, horizontal to the CCD = perpendicular to the direction of the scan. At magnifications above 100% one sees they are prismatic, but they look red to me at normal viewing magnifications. Four fit inside a 35mm sprocket hole, with their accompanying empty spaces. Interestingly, I've just scanned a typed page in reflective mode (RGB), and I don't see the lines in the white of the page, but I do see it along the edges of type. The optical illusion is that the hollow spaces of the type are filled with the lines, but at higher magnification one sees that is just some spread off the edges, that do not connect at the center. In BW mode there are no lines, but the edges of the type looks like they were streaked by the lines. Finally, if I raise the resolution of the scan it increases the line frequency, and increases their spread. Does this mean it's transport mechanism is beat? It didn't use to do this, but I haven't used it for a while, and I guess it got moved around, otherwise I don't know what might have changed. Could giving it a new SCSI ID help? A whack in the head, or a toss out the window? Todd
Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
I haven't looked at that scan channel-by-channel. It's not a perfect scan, by any means, but was meant to show what comes out of this scanner with zero effort. If you'd like a higher-res scan of any part of this image, I'd be happy to email it to you. That's kind of you Rafe, but not necessary. It was really a more general question about how the ways any given blue channel may get affected. Thanks just the same, Todd I used fairly severe JPG compression, thinking initially I'd post these images to the list. I changed my mind and decided to put them up on the web site instead. rafe b. Rafe, I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw raises a somewhat generic question for me. The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what appears to be jpeg artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know the blue channel is typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I forget why. Isn't it because the CCD elements are least sensitive to blue light? If so that is a hardware thing. But jpeg is a software thing, so why would it also show up predominantly in the blue channel? Is that typical of jpegs, or was it just a fluke or coincidence here?
Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
on 7/18/01 11:11 PM, rafeb wrote: I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at: http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm Rafe, I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw raises a somewhat generic question for me. The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what appears to be jpeg artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know the blue channel is typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I forget why. Isn't it because the CCD elements are least sensitive to blue light? If so that is a hardware thing. But jpeg is a software thing, so why would it also show up predominantly in the blue channel? Is that typical of jpegs, or was it just a fluke or coincidence here? Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/17/01 12:24 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: Why would you ever use the long exposure option if the short one yielded a scan that was as good? Increase DMax for positives... Just for the sake of clarity, I think you mean dynamic range. Todd
filmscanners: I apologize
Folks, I'm very sorry about what transpired here between Austin and I recently. It was beneath all of you. It was my fault, and I promise to do my best not to let it happen again. Todd Flashner
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
on 7/15/01 10:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: He issued a challenge (as he often does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could offer any. And you gave me a hard time about my similar belief/comments on profiles for scanners! I don't believe I've ever heard Dan be quite so demonstrative against anybody *beta-testing* ANYTHING. I don't think I've ever heard you *asking* if profiles work for anyone. Todd Er, my point in that discussion was that they were not really very useful...and other experienced uses chimed in and agreed. And an equal number of experienced users use 'em. My point in that conversation was I thought it odd the way you pounced on the person who merely asked if anyone on this list was interested in beta-testing scanner profiles. It seemed to me you had the notion to suggest that Polaroid's engineers are either doomed to fail, or that Polaroid's marketing department is trying to rip-off an unsuspecting scanner community. For all I know, in the end you may be right, but I don't see how you can fault a company for beta-testing. I interpreted the effort as them trying to determine if they had something useful to the public by running it by the public. As it relates to Margulis, even when he has strong convictions he continually asks for new evidence to the contrary, so that he may test it, and revise his convictions as necessary. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote: You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many dialog boxes. Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with Austin, though enjoying the dialog, nonetheless. The point you make above (and the steps you elaborate in the following paragraphs) are fairly typical for other film scanner drivers also. Which is one of the reasons I generally disregard scanner speed comparisons. 1. Time to set up the scan often exceeds the time taken to actually perform the scan, at least for the way I work. 2. Time spent fiddling with the image in Photoshop afterwards completely dwarfs the scan time + scan setup time. Rafe, I don't have enough experience with other film scanners to know how other's operate. I wondered if they were any better or worse. Perhaps I owe my leaf an apology. ;-) On personal level though, regarding scan time Vs Photoshop time, they are two different beasts. I love PS, and scanning is drudge work. It's as if you owned a Ferrari (PS) and every time you wanted to take it for an hour drive, you had to put in an hour of maintenance first (scanning). Thus, I don't try to get perfectly corrected scans. I just capture a 16-bit raw scan, which I expand in PS. Full resolution, raw (HDR) color scans, can take over an hour with the Leaf. I still think it's a time saver to do it that way, cause if I ever want to revisit the image, to develop it differently, I don't need to rescan. I've already got a 16-bit, max resolution file (IOW, the best the scanner is capable of giving) archived. Hey Austin! That's one of the capabilities of the Leaf I love! My other favorite is the ability to file out it's negative carriers for full frame scans Anyway, not really making a point here, just shootin' the breeze. Todd
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
Austin, I'm drained from this. I have one short comment below, and then I'm done for now. He issued a challenge (as he often does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could offer any. And you gave me a hard time about my similar belief/comments on profiles for scanners! I don't believe I've ever heard Dan be quite so demonstrative against anybody *beta-testing* ANYTHING. I don't think I've ever heard you *asking* if profiles work for anyone. Todd Er, my point in that discussion was that they were not really very useful...and other experienced uses chimed in and agreed. And an equal number of experienced users use 'em. Show me the posts that supports this. I only remember a few people chiming in and saying that they may use them as a starting point, or as a newbie, they may use them, but I do not recall ANY experienced users saying they used them. I'm on too many lists to gather the stuff up from for you. If you have any real interest in learning about it, or even just debating about it (as is your wont), check the archives of Adobe's Colorsync list, the highend film scanners list, Dan Margulis's Color theory list, look at the websites of color management people like Andrew Rodney (AKA Digital Dog), Creative Pro where Bruce Fraser posts some articles, or just do a broad web search. Bye, Todd My point in that conversation was I thought it odd the way you pounced on the person who merely asked if anyone on this list was interested in beta-testing scanner profiles. It seemed to me you had the notion to suggest that Polaroid's engineers are either doomed to fail, or that Polaroid's marketing department is trying to rip-off an unsuspecting scanner community. I did not pounce on anyone for their interest in beta-testing. What I said was that I believed they were not very useful, and pointed out that most other scanner manufacturers do not use them. For all I know, in the end you may be right, but I don't see how you can fault a company for beta-testing. But I didn't... I believe you read something into what I said that I didn't say, or attribute a motive that wasn't there. If I remember right, that was a bad hair week for you ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
There's this mantra that capturing the scan data in 16 bits obviates all other responsibilities at the scanner-driver stage, and I've never bought into that. Seems I get by nicely with 24-bit (8 bit/color) scans, in spite of all I read here and elsewhere about the advantages of 48-bit scans. There's no question that 48-bit files will allow *certain* scan shortcomings to be fixed up around later. OTOH, it's easy enough to obtain 48-bit scans that are fatally flawed from the get-go. rafe b. I believe with the leaf, calibration and focus aside, when you get an HDR file you are getting all that it can get from the scan. You will never need to scan separately for the highlights, and for the shadows, cause you've already gotten as deep into them as the scanner is able to deliver. There is nothing you can do to the scan in the driver that you can't do in PS, so at that point you can go by which interface you prefer. In my tests, doing the manipulations in PS did NOT give better results than doing it in the driver. IOW, if the files were made to look the same, you'd find the same amount of noise, and the same histogram either way. (why not, both you and the driver have been working on 16-bit files) But to that point all your moves have been global. When you start with the raw scan, when both images are the *same*, you are still in 16-bit, so you can do your selective moves in 16-bit too. Thus, getting a globally nice 8bit file will be the same either way, but a heavily manipulated file with selections, will be better by staying in 16-bit as long as possible. Whether the difference shows up in print is another matter. I think it depends on the quality/tonality/character of the original, and the degree of manipulation you do to the file. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/14/01 3:28 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: How fast can it scan a 6x6 BW? On a 700 MHz Athlon PC: 2 minutes, 10 seconds with Super Fine Scan OFF. 5 minutes, 15 seconds with Super Fine Scan ON. FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes. At 4000 DPI? Todd
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
Austin, You are doing yourself a great injustice to dismiss the work of Margulis based upon his style. He is an iconoclast who bases his approach on what works in the real world, as opposed to the theoretical, and is hell bent on dismantling many of our conventional wisdoms, and the pundits who support them. I think you might actually like him. ;-) But, one thing you should know, his emphasis is on color work destined for press. However, if you are interested in the architecture of Photoshop, in my humble estimation, he's the Dean of the university. Todd One article is online at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Sharpen.pdf I haven't read enough to know if this guy Margulis knows what he's talking about or not, but to quote from one of his articles: Anyone who thinks that if a fine screen is good, than a finer one must be better is a moron. Right or wrong, I really have no interest in reading anything from someone who is so disrespectful of his readers and feels he needs to call them names, no matter how much of a genius he may be.
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
on 7/15/01 5:37 AM, Arthur Entlich wrote: Lastly, I have found the amount of USM you can get away with depends upon the scanner and the film in use. If the scanner or film tends to exaggerate grain, defects, or noise, you can't go to far with USM, because these are indeed the types of things that USM will enhance. If your scanner has low noise, doesn't grain aliase, or exaggerate dust scratches and the like, you can pump the USM up a fair amount without it looking unnatural. Art Also the subject matter. Fine details (high frequency) vs broad areas (low frequency). Bruce Fraser uses a tree branches and a pumpkin to illustrate the difference in Real World PS. An image primarily composed of fine details may want a smaller radius with a high(er) amount, relative to a less detailed object, which in turn may want a larger radius with a lower amount. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/15/01 11:11 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: How fast can it scan a 6x6 BW? On a 700 MHz Athlon PC: 2 minutes, 10 seconds with Super Fine Scan OFF. 5 minutes, 15 seconds with Super Fine Scan ON. FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes. At 4000 DPI? Todd Todd, don't you own a Leafscan? I do believe you're on the Leafscan emaiil list. I can send you the manual if you like ;-) I believe you know (then why ask?) the Leafscan scans 1:1 (6cm wide) at 2540PPI, as well as 35mm at 5080PPI and 4x5 at 1200PPI. For a 6x6, the Leafscan provides enough resolution to print a 24 by 24 image at 240PPI, and a 12 x 12 at 480PPI. There is a point of diminishing returns, at least for Piezography output, where more resolution does not give any better output. Right you are Austin, I should have added a winkie, or something to imply I was asking rhetorically, but I thought it worthy to show that it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. Especially if you add in the warm up time, calibration time, focus time, prescan time, etc. Sorry. Todd
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
on 7/15/01 9:10 AM, rafeb wrote: But, one thing you should know, his emphasis is on color work destined for press. However, if you are interested in the architecture of Photoshop, in my humble estimation, he's the Dean of the university. .. but not necessarily the Color Management Department. g Funny how geniuses (like Margulis) often have a point at which they stop believing. For Margulis, it's color management. For Einstein, it was quantum mechanics. Do you inhabit Dan's Color Theory list Rafe? What's interesting is some of Dan's Pals there are some of the same big wigs who inhabit the Colorsync list. Dan's focus is the printing press. He issued a challenge (as he often does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could offer any. He's not opposed to someone using a tool to come of with paper profiles for their Epson's, be it for desktop use, or for proofing use. He just doesn't believe it's lived up to the hype the pundits purported it to be. Someone you might actually like. ;-) ;-) ;-) Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
I'm a bit puzzled though. If you have one of these, why do you dislike it so much, and continue to bring up only (what you perceive as) negative things about it (or things that other scanners do better)? I've not (certainly recently at least) heard you say one good thing that is has going for it, even though it has a LOT good going for it, even against technology that is 10 years newer! Austin, Your post was much longer, but this was the only point on which there is confusion between us. I like the leaf, I'm glad I bought it, but mine has some problems, and the cost for shipping and repair is prohibitive. So I live with it in it's compromised condition. I won't get into details here about the problems it has, as I've done so on the Leafscan list, including posted images. You may remember you were going to send me a sample of your output for comparison? Don't worry about it, I already know mine doesn't perform as well as most other's. I do take issue with you that I only get into it's problems. On this very list I posted what follows in response to an inquiry about the Leaf. * Leaf scanners occasionally turn up on Ebay for a reasonable price. What's with them? Are they a good deal or a maintenence nightmare? Rich If you get one that gives no trouble, they are a phenomenal buy. If you get one that needs repair, you can figure on at least $300 round trip shipping, possibly for an estimate alone. I recommend buying one, but make sure you get some sample scans done first to make sure all is in order. Todd ** I don't think I could phrase it any better today. I feel I'm just giving a fair report of the Leaf in comparison to what I consider to be hype from a lot of Leaf owners. I've told you before, I get the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's weight. I wonder if there is a tacit conspiracy to try to keep resale prices high ;-). Admittedly, if mine was in perfect working order, perhaps I'd be as hyped about it too. I haven't had the opportunity to compare it's scans to the better desktop scanners, only to drum scans, which were far superior, but given their cost, that is as it should be. But let's keep perspective here. You're taking issue with me for pointing out that the time you quoted for a leaf scan was based upon a lower resolution, and also you use the minimum exposure time, which reduces quality (I know it's arguable whether it matters with negatives). As the engineer that you are, I'm surprised you take issue with me trying to keep the parameters the same when making comparisons. I'd have thought you'd appreciate that; unless in fact, it is You! - ha ha! - who has a leaf agenda! wink, wink In short, if someone is dis'in the Leaf I'll stick up for it, to give it fair representation. On a list with you, I feel I need to add a little negative weight to keep the report balanced. I just don't think I have the same allegiance to the machine as you. Even in light of the fact it's ten year old technology. No matter, I'm glad you're a proud and happy owner. I sorta, kinda, am too. Todd
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
on 7/15/01 2:31 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: He issued a challenge (as he often does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could offer any. And you gave me a hard time about my similar belief/comments on profiles for scanners! I don't believe I've ever heard Dan be quite so demonstrative against anybody *beta-testing* ANYTHING. I don't think I've ever heard you *asking* if profiles work for anyone. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/15/01 10:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: I've told you before, I get the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's weight. I've never heard anyone have any complaints about it as you elude to here...except for soft red channel, which is typical of any CCD scanner. What negatives specifically, are you referring to? Exorbitant to ship, slow, expensive to repair, limited driver controls, lack of parts for older models, all are out of warranty, and some suffer from excessive red channel bloom. You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many dialog boxes. Hit Calibrate: 1) Do you want to make a new one or download an existing one. Hit Okay. 2) Please remove the film holder. Hit Okay. Wait what, 3 mins for a calibration? Hit Focus: Please insert film. Hit Okay. 1 minute? Hit Prescan: 3 mins? So even if you were to make NO adjustments to the scan, you'd still have hit six buttons and taken about 8 minutes, just jockeying the film around and hitting buttons. Mainly the problem really occurs when you hit an Okay button and walk away, forgetting there's another dialog box behind it. I know that's true for any device, but it's likelihood is increased the more dialog boxes you have. And I know YOU only scan 6x6 BW negs, but for those of us who change film formats - which necessitates a new calibration; and those of us who shoot color film - which triples scan times; and those of us who use optimum exposure - which again doubles the time (lets just say for chromes); and for those of us who scan to 16-bit HDR files - which for color makes for scan times about 12-20x longer than your Minimum exposure Grayscale file. It adds up! But please, I hope you're not trying to trick me into bringing up what I perceive to be negatives so you can then tell me that that's all I talk about. ;-) Also, what you may consider a negative, others may not consider a negative at all...like scanning MF at 2540, how is that a negative, if it is more than sufficient to give someone the results they need? You misinterpreted my comment. It wasn't to denigrate the Leaf for only being 2540 vs 4000 ppi for the Nikon. My point was that it wasn't a valid speed comparison when the two are scanning at different resolutions. But let's keep perspective here. You're taking issue with me for pointing out that the time you quoted for a leaf scan was based upon a lower resolution, and also you use the minimum exposure time, which reduces quality (I know it's arguable whether it matters with negatives). It's not arguable, lowering the scan time for BW negatives absolutely does not degrade the quality of the scans. I'm not saying you are wrong about this, but have you tested this with dense negs, thin negs, t-grain negs, C41 BW negs, infrared negs? I have not, so I stick with the exposure labeled optimum, as does Steven Helber, the guy who repairs Leafs. Again, my issue wasn't about quality so much as equal parameters for a comparison. I have no idea if the Nikon has a similar lesser-but-theoretically-sufficient-quality scan mode. But if it does, it should be allowed to test in that mode too, knowing you are doing the same. That was my point, anyway. The point was MF scan time of the two scanners, resolution was not at question. Again, I think resolution *should* have been part of the equation. As the engineer that you are, I'm surprised you take issue with me trying to keep the parameters the same when making comparisons. The only parameters that were part of that particular discussion were MF and BW. We know what the resolution of these scanners are. If we were discussing 35mm, I don't believe I would have chimed in and claimed that any comparison is invalid/degraded because the Polaroid and Nikon scanners can only scan 35mm at 4000PPI, instead of 5080... What would be the point? First of all, knowing how you stand up for your Leaf, I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that you would have something to say about it had the tables been reversed. You'd find a point. ;-) Second, I guess we just differ on what are meaningful parameters for speed comparisons. To my mind comparing at same resolutions is meaningful. Otherwise, why not just scan at 72 dpi, while the competition scans at 4000 dpi. Then you could really wipe the floor with the competition - and wouldn't that feel good. ;-) I just don't think I have the same allegiance to the machine as you. I have no allegiance to the Leafscan, just the results. If it did not do what I needed, or I found one that gave me significantly better results, while not compromising other needs, I'd buy it. Cheers to that! Me too. Todd PS, I think I'm done with this - you?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
The Nikons sharpness advantage is primarily in the blue channel, which *could* make it more susceptible to showing noise and film grain. However, both look great and I think either one could be made too look like the other without much trouble. I a have a feeling features (ICE) and accessories (film holders) are what will sway consumers more than scan quality. Looks like they both scan well enough. Though I'd like to see how well each deals with dense BW negs, and deep shadows Todd It's clear to me that ICE nailed a couple of dust motes in the bottle lettering, and that the Nikon scan is marginally sharper. But if the theme is Italy, the warmer tones of the SprintScan come closest (even if the original didn't). This, of course, is happy accident--if the theme were Yelow Knife, Canada, the roles might be reversed. :-) As Lawrence said on his site, the judgement is largly subjective, and so it's your call. Best regards--LRA From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:07:19 -0400 I just posted a set of camparison scans by a SS120 and an 8000ED to my site at http://www.lwsphoto.com/scan%20tests.htm These are not a final conclusions, they are simply examples I am a bit surprised by the results however. Lawrence _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
filmscanners: On dust
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote: I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and you don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot whilst scanning the next slide. There is much discussion of dust, with little on removal. I mean physically removing it, not digitally. I use Ilford Antistaticum cloths (about $5 - $6 each, at your finer photo stores - ant photo store really) to gently rub both sides of the film. Then a spray on both sides with canned air, and I get very few dust marks. I scan with a Leaf, which Austin claims keeps dust from settling on the film (you judge the impatiality of that one. ;-)) but I used the same technique in the wet darkroom with similarly good results. I was also a custom printer (silver BW) in two labs which also used these cloths. They're an industry standard. HTH, Todd
Re: filmscanners: Leaf?
Leaf scanners occasionally turn up on Ebay for a reasonable price. What's with them? Are they a good deal or a maintenence nightmare? Rich If you get one that gives no trouble, they are a phenomenal buy. If you get one that needs repair, you can figure on at least $300 round trip shipping, possibly for an estimate alone. I recommend buying one, but make sure you get some sample scans done first to make sure all is in order. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I'm sorry that I gave the impression that it's a bad idea. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 rhododendron back to life! ;-p Todd
Re: filmscanners: The whole frame
on 6/5/01 1:33 PM, Dave Suurballe wrote: I would love to see a scanner that can scan from film edge to film edge, not just the exposed frame in the middle. That's because I'm scanning negatives which have a serial number exposed on the film outside the sprocket holes and it would be great to get that on the raw scan. Dave Suurballe Do what darkroom workers have been doing for decades - file out your film carriers. Or are you saying the scanner won't even read out that far? If that's the case get a used Leafscan 4x5 and use filed out Beseler film holders, or any scanner that can scan a format larger than your film with a glass carrier. You may need to make a carrier that will serve you. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Leaf 45
on 5/14/01 11:36 AM, Roger Smith wrote: At 6:11 PM -0400 5/12/01, Lynn Allen wrote: Anyway, using Harry's pin-prick method with a piece of black neg leader, I did the same thing Roger did with my Acer Scanwit at 2700dpi (Stellartest1). No ghosts, no bleeding. Actually, I expected quite a bit of noise, and got some, but it adjusted right out with the curve tool in MiraPhoto. I had to admit to Harry that when I lightened up my scan considerably (using Photoshop Levels, not rescanning) the ghosting did indeed appear. Ordinarily it is masked by the dark background. (Minolta Scan Dual II) At 11:36 AM -0400 5/13/01, tflash wrote: I tried this with my Leafscan 45 And I get color fringing around the holes. I pin pricked the black leader from color neg film and scanned it as color neg. At 100% The hole edges are ringed with red and green. Does anyone else experience this phenomenon? I suspect that my scanner, being a three pass design, is having registration problems between the channels, or because the red channel typically seems softer than the other channels. I don't seem to experience much colour fringing. The blue areas in the scratch are places my needle didn't remove the entire emulsion of the unexposed slide film. Okay, this list accepts attachments Here's mine from the Leaf. Less flare, but more color fringe. Though when I lighten it there is a bit of a ghost trail behind the holes. Not sure what direction they are in in relation to the direction of the scan... Todd attachment: pin holes crop.jpg attachment: pin holes crop.jpgattachment: pin holes full frame light.jpg attachment: pin holes full frame light.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Leaf 45
on 5/14/01 3:22 AM, Harry Lehto wrote: Todd wrote: I tried this with my Leafscan 45 And I get color fringing around the holes. I pin pricked the black leader from color neg film and scanned it as color neg. At 100% The hole edges are ringed with red and green. Does anyone else experience this phenomenon? I suspect that my scanner, being a three pass design, is having registration problems between the channels, or because the red channel typically seems softer than the other channels. Not ringing but other odd things with a Canon 2710S. My neighbour scanned the same holes that I had with the Nikon Coolscan IV, and the results were quite interesting. With his permission I've put the sscans into my web area. He tells that this is the first time he has seen anything like this www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/2710.jpg (size 30K) The image shows the upper right corner of the holed slide. The Nikon scan of the same area is at http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/tcrop0004upper.jpg (size 35K) These are both from the upper right corner of the slide http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/tcrop0004small.jpg (size 23K) To me the Nikon ghosts look similar to the Canon ones, expect that they are slighly weaker and that all the colors are pretty much on top of one another yielding a greyer image. Note that they behave in a similar coma-like manner! Regards Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harry, I don't have a site to load my image onto, but I thought since you are doing comparisons you'd like to see what my scan looks like. It is a crop from a 2510 dpi scan. In spite of the color fringing there is considerably less coma than on your other samples - and my unit is not in perfect working order! Todd PS, since you are sharing your results with the list you are welcome to add mine to the collection. Let me know if you'd prefer a different view or anything. attachment: pin holes crop.jpg attachment: pin holes crop.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Leaf 45
Anyway, using Harry's pin-prick method with a piece of black neg leader, I did the same thing Roger did with my Acer Scanwit at 2700dpi (Stellartest1). No ghosts, no bleeding. I tried this with my Leafscan 45 And I get color fringing around the holes. I pin pricked the black leader from color neg film and scanned it as color neg. At 100% The hole edges are ringed with red and green. Does anyone else experience this phenomenon? I suspect that my scanner, being a three pass design, is having registration problems between the channels, or because the red channel typically seems softer than the other channels. Do other scanners experience this color fringing? Todd
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
With exposures where you have a black background and very bright points of light you can get bounce back off film plate in the back of the camera that look like halos. Can remember what this effect is called. Halation? To the original poster: Do you smoke? Looks like you might have a residue of some type on the lens (like from smoke).Or maybe the scanner's assembler left their signature on your unit in the form of a thumb print on the lens. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
on 5/11/01 8:44 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: How about wrap them in groups of say 10 in food wrap (cling film in the UK) and include some silica gel which could be replaced every couple of years. Should be very cheap and I dont see why it shouldn't work. A more expensive but more durable option would be to replace the cling film with air tight plastic food boxes - you'd still need the cling film. Actually, I'd think your idea would work using the heavier zip-lock freezer bags with a small silica gel pack. BTW, silica gel can be recharged with a microwave or regular oven. How 'bout doing all the above and putting it all in a closet or wardrobe with a humidifier in it. I wonder if putting CD's in a ziplock/tupperware thing and then the freezer would add to their longevity? Todd
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.17 Available
Could you explain how to use VueScan with Leaf HDR files, I can't get it to work. I'm running Mac OS 9.1 on a G4, FWIW. Just put the raw scan files (in .tif format) into the VueScan folder and name them scan0001.tif, scan0002.tif, etc. Then run VueScan, set Device|Scan from to Disk, set the Device|Mode to LeafScan, set Device|Frame numbers to 1-99 and then press the Scan button. Sorry Ed, This doesn't work for me. Is anything missing? Anything else I should try? Todd Flashner
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.17 Available
on 5/4/01 12:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's new in version 7.0.17 * Added color correction for Leaf scanners when reading raw scan files produced by this scanner Ed, Could you explain how to use VueScan with Leaf HDR files, I can't get it to work. I'm running Mac OS 9.1 on a G4, FWIW. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED review part II
when it comes to dealing with the files it can generate (122+Mb files from a 35mm frame) Photoshop does a better job. I am enjoying your review, but how does 4000ppi @ 35mm come out to an 122+Mb file? Todd
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
The reduced price of the Polaroid does not include the Sliverfast AI, or Binuscan drivers. Both will be included for an additional $500. I did get a chance to make a scan with the Polaroid 120 today with Insight 5.0 and felt it worked as smoothly as my SS4000. The full size negative scan from a 6x6 will be around 200 megabytes. That's a nice big file. But when one doesn't need such a large file, is it better to scan at the optical resolution and rez down, or better to scan at a lower resolution? Todd
filmscanners: NIKON COOLSCAN 4500AF
Anybody have anything good or bad to say about this older scanner (NIKON COOLSCAN 4500AF)? I know very little about it. The tech sheet says it's capable of 35mm at 3000ppi, and 4x5 at 1000ppi, but it doesn't say what resolution it uses for medium format, though I suppose it's 1000ppi. Has anybody worked with one of these? I'm primarily interesting in scanning BW negs, FWIW. Any help is appreciated, Todd
filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? Thanks, Todd
