Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
Slavitt, Howard wrote: . At 4000 dpi, this gives me files of about 660 Megabytes in 10 minutes! If I scan at 1/2 maximum resolution, 2000 dpi, the scan time drops to only 2 minutes or less for 6 cm x 9 cm slides, and I get an excellent 160 MB 48 bit file, which is 80 MB after reduced to 24 bit color. Sharpness on the scans is excellent. 35 mm scans are also very nice; 4000 dpi in 48 bit mode in about 2 minutes. As you probably recognize, cutting resolution down by half also reduces the amount of data to one fourth, so it takes about one forth the time, and takes up one fourth the storage space. And of course, reducing the bit depth by half, also halves the file size again. I'll leave the medium format scanning issues to people using those scanners. Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:41:49 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, I find that, while the color calibration is very good, it has some shortcomings, depending on the particular slide, with the yellows and magentas; sometimes the yellows are overemphasized and the magentas underemphasized, or vice versa, as compared to the original viewed on a light table I suspect there's a slight lack of correspondence between your profile, derived using Kodak Ektachrome dye set, and the material you are scanning, which you mention as Velvia. IME Fuji dyes are close but not the same, and also Velvia has a bigger OD range which will put extreme highlight and shadow values outside the profiled response of the scanner. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
Ian's tip about changing the Auto threshold for highlight and shadow did the trick for 48 bit editing in Lasersoft. I'm now much better able to control the values in the blackest blacks and whitest whites. . . . So, other than waiting for Ian to write more tutorials, or just experimenting for countless hours with Lasersoft myself (I've already been there and done that with Photoshop, but at least I can reasonably expect I'll be using Photoshop in one form or another for the next 5 years at least, if not 10 years), how does one go about learning the ins and outs of this program (Lasersoft)? I find the manual to be barely better than useless (and I have spent several hours reading through it). . . For instance, is there a way to zoom into an image in Lasersoft (HDR -- because that's where I'm doing my editing of hi bit images) other than recropping? Everytime I try to zoom, I get a message that says I can't do it because the window is already filled up, so I need to recrop the image to zoom in which is a slow, clunky way of zooming. BTW, the Lasersoft window does not fill all of the real estate on my desktop, but it apparently won't go larger than a certain size. Thanks again, Ian. Ian Lyons responded to my previous post by writing: I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial religiously in calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest blacks and brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say 1.8 gamma)? Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme values? I can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop 48 bit editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command), but then this has other effects as well. . . . Fortunately, you haven't lost anything; the data in your shadows is all there to be extracted. True clipping is when the data ends in a cliff at level 0 or 255 and nothing exists at either of those points, it's gone forever. Going to gamma 1.8 means the image will be darker and will therefore require more editing to get it to the brightness level you want. You can set SilverFast HDR to clip the end points quite easily - just set the Auto threshold for highlight and shadow to about 7 or 8 % and you'll get what you want. I suggest you don't, but you feel that something's needs to be done then choose 4 or 5% (you'll need some headroom for later). see Page 9 of the HDR tutorial for the screen garab off the dilaog box
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
For instance, is there a way to zoom into an image in Lasersoft (HDR -- because that's where I'm doing my editing of hi bit images) other than recropping? You must create a new frame or resize the original frame (marching ants). You seem to have discovered one or other, not sure which as recropping in LaserSoft terms is master frame resized (not a good idea, unless that's what you intend scanning). To create a new or second frame you take the mouse to the top left corner of the preview screen; it should become a cross. Drag down and right. When it is about the size you need to cover the area of interest simply drag it over that area. Now go back to the top left and create a new full size frame. The full size will be used as the scan frame and the smaller your zoom frame, it can be moved around at will. Zooming is virtually instantaneous. The active frame will be the one that is showing marching ants, it's the one that will be scanned. To toggle between the zoom frame and scan frame simply click it edge. Remember marching ants means that is what gets scanned!! BTW if using the Zoom function a lot (and I do) I suggest you set the scan preview resolution to BTW, the Lasersoft window does not fill all of the real estate on my desktop, but it apparently won't go larger than a certain size. The preview screen is constrained by film format and free screen space. The preview screen control panel and densitometer are all able to float or become ONE. You can also switch the densitometer off and create more space. It actually goes to bed with the other control panels, so you won't loose it. Furthermore, there is a small triangle to the left of the zoom button, pressing it reduces the control panel to a much smaller size with only the toolbar present (all you need after configuration). On my 19 screen at 1280 by 1024 the preview screen full size goes left edge to right edge when in horizontal format. The band of spare desktop at the bottom is big enough for the reduced size control panel. I reckon that's a pretty big preview. Lots more to learn and every new day will bring new ways of doing things. Wait till you get to the Selective colour tool box or even better Expert mode. After a few months of practice you can sit the Advanced SilverFast flying test. Pass that and you'll be qualified to fly Airforce One :-) Enjoy, ian Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
snip Thanks for the review, Howard. First one I've seen on the list, other than Ian's. I have no comments on Silverfast vs. Insight... pick your poison, as they say. I will be interested in hearing of any tricks you come up with to deal with the bowing of large negatives. Same problem here on the 8000, to some extent. I've never used glass carriers, but have a feeling I may need to, in order to get ultimate image sharpness. For cleaning film, I use one of those cans of compressed air. Others have mentioned the StaticMaster brush. Nice having ICE to deal with the worst of the crud, though. rafeb.
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
Howard, I copied the following response to the scanner list. I am making raw 48 bit scans and gamma correcting them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast software, and then exporting them to Photoshop 6 (depending on the image I am doing the 48 bit editing in either Photoshop or Silverfast HDR). Another problem I am noticing with my raw, profiled scans is that the blackest blacks and whitest whites are clipped in the raw 48 bit, profile-corrected, scan. My darkest shadow areas never get below 20 on the Photoshop histogram and the whitest highlighs never above 235. Your private email wasn't as detailed as the above explanation and so my answer probably didn't address all your concerns. Sorry about that. Your highlights and shadows are not being clipped. If the scanner (any scanner) outputs in linear raw (no gamma correction) all the data will be stacked towards the shadow end, but with a scanner such as the SS120 or the Nikon 4000/8000 you shouldn't find that it is tight up against the Level 0 buffer (maybe level 1). When we apply the gamma curve the data will be stretched out across the histogram. With gamma 2.2 you are finding it starts about level 20 and finishes at level 235. Changing the gamma to 1.8 will certainly bring it down to about level 8/10, but level 0 requires gamma 1. If your images stop at level 235 they don't have any real bright highlights. I have scanned a few images that go from level 15 to level 250 (in gamma 2.2). Since you are outputting the image without SilverFast applying any other edits; the end points will rarely if ever stretch from end to end and they shouldn't or you have just wastes $3000plus on a scanner that has limited dynamic range. I would be surprised if any of the 14bit units produced end to end data for a linear raw scan. The only way that could be achieved is if the software forced to clip to highlight and shadow and I'd want my money back from the outfit who wrote that software and worry about the guys who made the scanner. What do they not want me to see? I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial religiously in calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest blacks and brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say 1.8 gamma)? Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme values? I can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop 48 bit editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command), but then this has other effects as well. . . . Fortunately, you haven't lost anything; the data in your shadows is all there to be extracted. True clipping is when the data ends in a cliff at level 0 or 255 and nothing exists at either of those points, it's gone forever. Going to gamma 1.8 means the image will be darker and will therefore require more editing to get it to the brightness level you want. You can set SilverFast HDR to clip the end points quite easily - just set the Auto threshold for highlight and shadow to about 7 or 8 % and you'll get what you want. I suggest you don't, but you feel that something's needs to be done then choose 4 or 5% (you'll need some headroom for later). see Page 9 of the HDR tutorial for the screen garab off the dilaog box Moreover, Photoshop has excellent masking tools, which Silverfast does not (while not available in 48 bit mode, you can save a duplicate of the file to 24 bit mode, mask in 24 bit mode, and then, reopening the 48 bit file, use the masks created in the 24 bit mode on the 48 bit file). To be fair, Silverfast's automatic correction tool with manual override is a nice feature, but is it worth $300? Whilst not being as effective as the more powerful masking tools found in Photoshop, which you rightly point out are only available in 8bit mode, SilverFast does indeed have two masking in tools (see the selective colour toolbox). You'll find a freehand and Polygon lasso tool that is actually quite useful at times. When you combine the selection tools with the selective colour tool you have an extremely powerful editing facility. You haven't wasted your money. I think there is a lot to SilverFast that you haven't quite discovered yet. That's said LaserSoft don't make life easy for the user with their poor documentation for version 5. I hope the above helps a tad more than my earlier response Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
Overall, I admit, I like Silverfast. The more I use it, the more I like it's basic structure, automatic corrections with detailed options for manual override, i.e., here's what our artificial intelligence thinks you should do, now go improve on it, if you have the inclination and/or time. The documentation is really lacking, however. Even the documentation for version 4, while apparently comprehensive, is obscure, at best. Features are described, but still not clarified. Thank God (or at least Ian) for Ian's great tutorials to get one started. Ian Lyons wrote: You haven't wasted your money. I think there is a lot to SilverFast that you haven't quite discovered yet. That's said LaserSoft don't make life easy for the user with their poor documentation for version 5.
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
First Howard, congratulations on the new scanner. I'm new to this list. I just purchased a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with the Silverfast software. I have some initial impressions to share and some questions. First, overall the scan quality is, IMHO, excellent and the scanner is very fast. For medium format I am scanning 6 cm x 9 cm slides (mostly Velvia). I am scanning into 48 bit raw files and then exporting to Photoshop. At 4000 dpi, this gives me files of about 660 Megabytes in 10 minutes! If I scan at 1/2 maximum resolution, 2000 dpi, the scan time drops to only 2 minutes or less for 6 cm x 9 cm slides, and I get an excellent 160 MB 48 bit file, which is 80 MB after reduced to 24 bit color. Sharpness on the scans is excellent. 35 mm scans are also very nice; 4000 dpi in 48 bit mode in about 2 minutes. I would be shooting more negative film with CCD scanners. With good scanning and Photoshop techniques you should be able to get the best end result with negatives. Here are my questions/problems with the scanner that maybe someone can help me with: 1. Did I make a mistake spending $300 extra for the Silverfast software? The main reason I purchased the software was for the color calibration module and IT8 slide, and because I'd heard so many great things about Silverfast. However, I find that, while the color calibration is very good, it has some shortcomings, depending on the particular slide, with the yellows and magentas; sometimes the yellows are overemphasized and the magentas underemphasized, or vice versa, as compared to the original viewed on a light table (BTW for those who have never worked with a custom ICC profile for a scanner before, these shortcomings are quite minor, nothing compared to color shifts you see without a custom-profiled scanner, but I'm a perfectionist when it comes to color; fyi, I have a fully calibrated workflow on a Mac G4 using Optical and a DTP92 to calibrate my monitor, so the problem is not elsewhere in my workflow). I am making raw 48 bit scans and gamma correcting them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast software, and then exporting them to Photoshop 6 (depending on the image I am doing the 48 bit editing in either Photoshop or Silverfast HDR). Another problem I am noticing with my raw, profiled scans is that the blackest blacks and whitest whites are clipped in the raw 48 bit, profile-corrected, scan. My darkest shadow areas never get below 20 on the Photoshop histogram and the whitest highlighs never above 235. I followed Ian Lyon's tutorial religiously in calibrating the scanner with Silverfast; is losing the blackest blacks and brightest whites a result of using a 2.2 gamma (as opposed to say 1.8 gamma)? Is there some easy way to retrieve these more extreme values? I can of course increase the contrast in Silverfast HDR or Photoshop 48 bit editing (for example by moving in sliders on the Levels command), but then this has other effects as well. . . . IMO, no, you did not waste money on Silverfast and the calibration option. The sort of discrepencies in color you're seeing may be attributed to any link in the chain. You don't know that it's not your monitor just because it's calibrated. As the chain gets better, smaller inaccuracies become more apparent. That doesn't mean the newest link in your imaging chain is the cause of them. Your shadows and highlights don't sound clipped to me if they're at 20 and 235. Clipped would be values running off the histogram at 0 and 255. It sounds like the software is giving you slightly soft scans, which is ideal for final correction in PS. Back to my question about whether the Silverfast software bundle is worth the extra $300, other than IT8 calibration, what does Silverfast off that you can't just do in 48 bit mode in Photoshop 6.0? What's the advantage of learning an entirely new interface? Am I missing something? Moreover, Photoshop has excellent masking tools, which Silverfast does not (while not available in 48 bit mode, you can save a duplicate of the file to 24 bit mode, mask in 24 bit mode, and then, reopening the 48 bit file, use the masks created in the 24 bit mode on the 48 bit file). To be fair, Silverfast's automatic correction tool with manual override is a nice feature, but is it worth $300? Personally, I only want a soft, fairly color correct hi bit scan to import into PS for exact final correction. IMO the main feature of Silversoft is accurate calibration of the scanner. That is easily worth $300. 2. With one 6cm x 9 cm slides I've scanned (out of about 8 or 9 images scanned), there is noticeable softness introduced by the bowing of the film because the film carrier does not hold it perfectly flat. (The original does not have this softness.) Are there any tricks that people have come up with to reduce this bowing? Look at the mounted film under a point source desk lamp (such as the Solux Task Lamp) before loading into
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
At 10:41 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: Enjoy. This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format size. I'm not sure I agree there, Dave. The Leafscan 45 and the Imacons (both CCD) have been around for a while. The two new models (from Polaroid and Nikon) are poised, IMHO, somewhere between these two very worthy (but dated) standards. On 35 mm, the Leaf 35 and 45 can probably still beat either the Polaroid or Nikon. Er, that is, if you have an hour or so to wait (on the Leaf.) What *is* quite significant is the price that these new models are being offered at -- roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the Leaf's original price, or Imacon's current retail price. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
At 10:41 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: Enjoy. This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format size. I'm not sure I agree there, Dave. The Leafscan 45 and the Imacons (both CCD) have been around for a while. The two new models (from Polaroid and Nikon) are poised, IMHO, somewhere between these two very worthy (but dated) standards. On 35 mm, the Leaf 35 and 45 can probably still beat either the Polaroid or Nikon. Er, that is, if you have an hour or so to wait (on the Leaf.) What *is* quite significant is the price that these new models are being offered at -- roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the Leaf's original price, or Imacon's current retail price. rafe b. OK, I don't agree with myself either. What I should have said is first generation of practical CCD scanners etc. These puppies will profilerate like bunnies, and that can't really be said of any previous medium format scanners for critical work. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120?
David, I've seen an add in Canada reducing the price of the Sprintscan 4000 by $500.00 Cdn to $1799.00. Could you tell me what is shipped with the 4000, i.e does it come with a SCSI adapter ? Thank you Dale http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10024 "If you aren't the lead dog the scenery never changes" - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:28 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? Jonathan, The scheduled release for the SS120 is mid Janurary. The actual release should be 1/15 through 2/15 depending on how fast we can tie up all the loose ends. The MSRP will be $3995 with an expected street price of around $3500. I am sure they will be on allocation initially so the initial street price will probably be higher. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jonathan Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? Anyone know the availability and pricing of the sprintscan 120? It looks like a great scanner. I'm wondering if I should wait for it. Thanks, -Jonathan
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120?
Dale, To be sure I will contact the Canadian sales manager. Either he or I will get back to you soon. David -Original Message- From: Dale Gail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? David, I've seen an add in Canada reducing the price of the Sprintscan 4000 by $500.00 Cdn to $1799.00. Could you tell me what is shipped with the 4000, i.e does it come with a SCSI adapter ? Thank you Dale http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10024 "If you aren't the lead dog the scenery never changes" - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:28 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? Jonathan, The scheduled release for the SS120 is mid Janurary. The actual release should be 1/15 through 2/15 depending on how fast we can tie up all the loose ends. The MSRP will be $3995 with an expected street price of around $3500. I am sure they will be on allocation initially so the initial street price will probably be higher. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jonathan Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? Anyone know the availability and pricing of the sprintscan 120? It looks like a great scanner. I'm wondering if I should wait for it. Thanks, -Jonathan
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120?
Jonathan, The scheduled release for the SS120 is mid Janurary. The actual release should be 1/15 through 2/15 depending on how fast we can tie up all the loose ends. The MSRP will be $3995 with an expected street price of around $3500. I am sure they will be on allocation initially so the initial street price will probably be higher. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: Jonathan Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120? Anyone know the availability and pricing of the sprintscan 120? It looks like a great scanner. I'm wondering if I should wait for it. Thanks, -Jonathan
