[filmscanners] Sprintscan 120 35mm strip holder for panoramic modification.
Several list members were having difficulty locating the Sprintscan 120 35MM film strip holder for modification to scan 35mm panoramic slide. Here is the information to order this part in the United States. Call 800-552-0711 hit 3 then 1 This puts you into order services. Ask for PID 119706. It is $40 David Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 focus/carriers
Hi list I have a problem with this (newish) scanner. In almost everything I've scanned so far I'm getting very patchy focus across the files. I'm comparing the file sharpness with 35mm scans from my Nik LS200 and 120 scans from an old Minolta Dimage Scanmulti. The problem appears to be the film carrier because I got sharp results by chopping the negs up and putting them in slide mounts. Anyone who has an SS120 will testify to the carriers' bad design; they lack any cross bar or masking across the neg. It's most obvious in a grainy black and white neg produced by T-Max 3200 with large sharp grain. At 100% or so the Nikon and Polaroid scans look reasonably sharp but the Polaroid's look very soft. I was willing to believe that I was being distracted by the Polaroid's increase in detail and tonal range but the slide mount test says different. Is there a way of nailing focus in a scan, like the way we used a focus finder in the darkroom? Can you position the focus point manually in Silverfast Ai or Vuescan? Failing that, anyone know of a redesigned film carrier? Cheers for any help Nick Nick Cobbing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 focus/carriers
In a message dated 12/19/2001 3:42:13 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can't speak or Vuescan focus, never tried that feature but SilverFast for the Polaroid scanners does NOT allow you to pick a focus point. VueScan doesn't allow you to pick a focus point either. The SS120 seems to use a fairly sophisticated focus algorithm that first does a rough sampling of the whole image, and then a fine focus at some position that it chooses. VueScan (and Insight and SilverFast) just set a single bit at the start of the scan to tell the scanner to auto focus before scanning. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
I have had my SprintScan for about a month and have seen similar problems, especially super graininess and posterization of the shadows in shots taken with Kodak Portra 160NC. This is especially true with the Polaroid Insight software. I upgraded SilverFast to AI 5.5 with Nega Fix, and is does quite a bit better job, but not always great. Be especially careful to specify flesh tones if they are present, otherwise you get grainy posterized orange cheeks in Caucasian skin. If you scan as raw color slide, 16bit (or HDR 48 bit color in Silverfast), and then undo the orange mask yourself in Photoshop, you will not see this posterization--so I think it is an artifact of the algorithms used to undo the negative mask. I undo the orange mask by going into levels and adjusting the black and white points separately for R, G and B, and then inverting. After that I usually go into curves and increase the contrast by shaping an S curve. By the way, do you find that you have to flatten the negatives to be able to see uniform grain? The only negatives I have that scan well have been sitting in a notebook for about a month and are very flat. Fresh negatives don't scan well. Mark Davison Seattle Washington, USA - Original Message - From: Craig Auckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:50 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs HI I brought the sprintscan just over a week ago and have had problems scanning negs - they seem to display quite visible noise; I think this is a scanner problem but wanted to confirm. As with most problems it is best to view for yourselves so if possible please look at http://www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk/sprintscan.html The image is a section of a 6x9 NPS neg (about 500k); a variety of negs display a similar fault, as do using various software packages (silverfast, vuescan etc) I need to know whether anyone else has seen this problem, especially people also using the sprintscan 120. Thanks in advance for your help Regards, Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel: +44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax: +44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Craig, Could you supply a sample area of the image of a problem area that has NOT been JPEG'd. Thanks David -Original Message- From: Craig Auckland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs HI I brought the sprintscan just over a week ago and have had problems scanning negs - they seem to display quite visible noise; I think this is a scanner problem but wanted to confirm. As with most problems it is best to view for yourselves so if possible please look at http://www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk/sprintscan.html The image is a section of a 6x9 NPS neg (about 500k); a variety of negs display a similar fault, as do using various software packages (silverfast, vuescan etc) I need to know whether anyone else has seen this problem, especially people also using the sprintscan 120. Thanks in advance for your help Regards, Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel:+44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax:+44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
David The original is about 16mb so no I cannot place a non jpeg file for you too see (would you wait to download it?) The jpeg has not made the image significantly worse - it was meant as an example; if you have seen similar then you would have known. Thank you to everyone else who replied. After speaking to Polaroid today (they looked at the at the image online as well) they are taking the scanner back and I shall receive another one - although some tests alongside another machine will be undertaken tomorrow - I will let everyone the outcome. Thanks again Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel:+44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax:+44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment Craig, Could you supply a sample area of the image of a problem area that has NOT been JPEG'd. Thanks David
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Film grain. You don't say how big this sample would be. For example, if the entire frame was 6x9 at 300dpi? NPS 160 has bigger grain when scanned than it should. Fujicolor 800 is about the same! I have found that to be true on an Agfa T-2500, Nikon LS-30, and a Polaroid SS4000. May be aliasing. I don't use Portra, but I hear it's scans with smaller grain. Dave - Original Message - From: Craig Auckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs HI I brought the sprintscan just over a week ago and have had problems scanning negs - they seem to display quite visible noise; I think this is a scanner problem but wanted to confirm. As with most problems it is best to view for yourselves so if possible please look at http://www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk/sprintscan.html The image is a section of a 6x9 NPS neg (about 500k); a variety of negs display a similar fault, as do using various software packages (silverfast, vuescan etc) I need to know whether anyone else has seen this problem, especially people also using the sprintscan 120. Thanks in advance for your help Regards, Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel: +44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax: +44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Craig, I would be surprised if it is the scanner. More likely the profile. You don't have to send the whole file just a small section of it. David -Original Message- From: Craig Auckland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs David The original is about 16mb so no I cannot place a non jpeg file for you too see (would you wait to download it?) The jpeg has not made the image significantly worse - it was meant as an example; if you have seen similar then you would have known. Thank you to everyone else who replied. After speaking to Polaroid today (they looked at the at the image online as well) they are taking the scanner back and I shall receive another one - although some tests alongside another machine will be undertaken tomorrow - I will let everyone the outcome. Thanks again Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel:+44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax:+44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment Craig, Could you supply a sample area of the image of a problem area that has NOT been JPEG'd. Thanks David
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Also, are you using a Mac or PC? David -Original Message- From: Craig Auckland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs David The original is about 16mb so no I cannot place a non jpeg file for you too see (would you wait to download it?) The jpeg has not made the image significantly worse - it was meant as an example; if you have seen similar then you would have known. Thank you to everyone else who replied. After speaking to Polaroid today (they looked at the at the image online as well) they are taking the scanner back and I shall receive another one - although some tests alongside another machine will be undertaken tomorrow - I will let everyone the outcome. Thanks again Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel:+44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax:+44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment Craig, Could you supply a sample area of the image of a problem area that has NOT been JPEG'd. Thanks David
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Dave The section was taken from a full 6x9 scan at 4000dpi (about 248mb); the sample section was about 16-17mb and I jpeged the file for the web. So it was only a small portion of the overall image but still looks pretty bad. I compared images scanned via photoCD and microtek scanner and they do not have the same 'white noise'. The guy from Polaroid seems to also think there is a problem. I also thought it could be grain but a variety of films showed the same problem; the only way I will really solve this is to scan like for like using another sp120 - which I will do tomorrow. I hope it is the scanner and that I can get another - otherwise this is a very poor scanner. The 'noise' is quite visible in prints larger than 10x8 - and this should not be the case - I have outputted to lambda from a microtek at 30x40 inch with no visible grain / noise etc. This scanner should be able to do the same. But we will see tomorrow! craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel:+44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax:+44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave King Sent: 27 November 2001 22:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs Film grain. You don't say how big this sample would be. For example, if the entire frame was 6x9 at 300dpi? NPS 160 has bigger grain when scanned than it should. Fujicolor 800 is about the same! I have found that to be true on an Agfa T-2500, Nikon LS-30, and a Polaroid SS4000. May be aliasing. I don't use Portra, but I hear it's scans with smaller grain. Dave - Original Message - From: Craig Auckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs HI I brought the sprintscan just over a week ago and have had problems scanning negs - they seem to display quite visible noise; I think this is a scanner problem but wanted to confirm. As with most problems it is best to view for yourselves so if possible please look at http://www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk/sprintscan.html The image is a section of a 6x9 NPS neg (about 500k); a variety of negs display a similar fault, as do using various software packages (silverfast, vuescan etc) I need to know whether anyone else has seen this problem, especially people also using the sprintscan 120. Thanks in advance for your help Regards, Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel: +44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax: +44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment
filmscanners: SprintScan 120 Success with VueScan 7.2.8
Polaroid loaned me a SprintScan 120 today, and I've been testing it with VueScan 7.2.8. It seems to work perfectly, and I can't get it to fail. I've also scanned a really, really dark slide that I have, and the SprintScan 120 has virtually _no_ noise in the dark areas - the images look quite nice. There's no need for multi-scanning on this scanner. The scanner I'm testing has firmware version 1.10. If anyone has firmware versions before this, could they test VueScan 7.2.8 with it? Thanks, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: SprintScan 120 Success with VueScan 7.2.8
And no banding either :) Could not resist, please forgive me!! David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: SprintScan 120 Success with VueScan 7.2.8 Polaroid loaned me a SprintScan 120 today, and I've been testing it with VueScan 7.2.8. It seems to work perfectly, and I can't get it to fail. I've also scanned a really, really dark slide that I have, and the SprintScan 120 has virtually _no_ noise in the dark areas - the images look quite nice. There's no need for multi-scanning on this scanner. The scanner I'm testing has firmware version 1.10. If anyone has firmware versions before this, could they test VueScan 7.2.8 with it? Thanks, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Hi All, I was very interested to hear your method of operation Tony. I too have developed a technique purely by trial and error over the years together with some reading up. My method is almost identical to yours especially: 1.When scanning have the darkest area a dark grey and the lightest area a light grey so as to ensure you are capturing all the info. 2. Do basic curve adjustment at scanning stage and tweak that in PS 3. Do Saturation adjustment as the penultimate step - before unsharp mask. I don't always use it - I have found that some subjects that in the past I would have bumped up the saturation on have actually benefitted more from a bir more tweeking in curves - usually the red. 4. If the scan is particularly awkward do two adjustments and combine with levels - sometimes do two separate scans and combine these. I actually tend to use the black eye dropper more than the white. This is probably more a result of having a lot of subjects against black and liking my blacks to be really black! I will also often start by using the auto function in curves and then reducing the effects that it has given me. Like Tony there is no single process that I use - it will depend on how well the image scans and how well it reacts to black point, auto etc. I am using an LS2000 with Nikon Scan. Since I do nearly all my adjustment with PS I have not felt the need to go to Vuescan. I am reluctant to embark on a new 'learning curve' when things seem to be working ok for me. We are looking at getting an LS8000 and may try Vuescan at that point. Regards, Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I am really enjoying the email on workflow and hope that others will post theirs. I remember Johnny Deadman offering to write down his workflow once, but it was just before I went offline for a few weeks and I never did get to see it. I find it enormously helpful to learn how folks go about digital scanning and printing, and it's sure to save me some time and frustration as I begin my own journey down this bumpy road. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:28:21 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your
technique
for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am
particularly
interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with
the
scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray
points/ etc.
Thanx
Mike M.
I don't actually have a single regime, but a rather variable recipe which
I adapt ad hoc depending on the problems that emerge. But I'll try and
give an idea.
First off, nowadays I invariably use Vuescan for colour neg, scanning to
16 bits. Having messed about plenty with Insight, Binuscan and Silverfast,
I've found that whilst all of them can give very good results a lot of the
time, each can occasionally result in a scan which an utter b*tch to sort
out. Vuescan just seems more consistent, or at least I have evolved a way
of working with it which works reliably for me. But this route is slow,
far slower and requiring vastly more effort from me than the others. This
suits me because I would rather scan once then do things incrementally.
With the others, any significant problem I can't fix usually means
re-scanning.
I aim to do the gross colour correction in Vuescan ('cos it's rather good
at it), but leave levels, saturation and final tweaking of curves and
colour to be done in PS. VS handles mask removal, so I don't even need to
think about that.
Typically this will mean using VS with 'white balance' selected, but
sometimes it isn't the best choice. This is just a trial and error thing,
based on the preview from memory. Whatever is closest to ballpark is best.
I'll select VS image controls so I get a scan which has headroom at both
ends - ie from dark grey to pale grey rather than max.black to white
highlights. VS default white point setting is too high for me, so I reset
it to 0.01. I want to try and get everything off the film at this stage
and make those decisions later in PS.
Typically the VS output scan will look washed out, low contrast and
desaturated as a result. This is good! With 16bits, there's plenty of room
for improving things.
First job in PS is to open the VS scan000n.tif file and do all the tedious
spotting and damage correction then save the image over itself. Then again
immediately to a different name/location. That way I can always go back,
or create another version with different corrections for a layer. This is
often the easiest way to get good highlights and good shadows in one image
- two separately corrected scans from the same VS original.
(Spotting is why I hate to have to go back and re-scan - it means
re-spotting and that takes ages and is criminally boring).
With a scan that is otherwise fairly correctly colour balanced, I'll then
set the levels. I'll clip the black point slightly, leave a bit of
highlight headroom, and get the overall gamma about right with the midtone
slider. Sometimes all that needs doing after that is to increase
saturation - I usually have to dial in +30 to +40 or so. Other times, I'll
need to revisit levels (or contrast/brightness) as well - it just depends.
Logically it would seem more sensible to increase the saturation as the
very first step (to make colour errors more obvious), but I find I can
never get it right if I do it before levels and have to adjust it again
anyhow.
With a scan which is 'off' regarding colour, there are various things I'll
try depending on what I think will work best. Usually I'll start with
levels again, and the channel histograms can be useful. I generally fix
the black point first using the slider, again clipped a bit. What happens
next is a bit suck it and see. You can mess about with the midtone and
highlight sliders on each channel, but this can result in chaos. If that
sort of thing is necessary, I find curves more intuitive and precise.
A useful shortcut to correcting casts is to double-click on the PS
highlight tool and set the tool to the tone and colour you want to
achieve. For example if you have a bit of white shirt collar which is
looking a murky pale blue/cyan, you'd select a neutral near-white. Drop
that on the offending bit of collar and PS will adjust the whole image :
magic! (though it can take some experimentation with the sample area, and
the precise tone/colour you want). This works particularly well for colour
negs shot in flourescent or tungsten, but it's best IMO to leave some
trace of the illuminant colour - fully corrected just looks wrong.
You can do the same thing with the shadow and midtone droppers, but I find
the highlight one usually the most helpful.
After getting the colour more or less balanced, I adjust the saturation
and then make any final adjustments to levels, colour balance etc.
That's it.
Except it isn't (oh, I love the history list:). I fairly often run into
trouble with levels and end up using curves
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:34:30 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I think I missed this. What settings do you use to access this type of correction? Ed has a variety of colour correction routines built into Vuescan - eg 'neutral', 'tungsten' etc. 'White balance' is another on the same drop-list menu, but not a preset - it appears to try and figure out the corrections necessary, and does rather a good job generally. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Hi Tony
Thanks for very informative mail and it helped me.
Hope other's too share thier technique.
Thanks
Ramesh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:28:21 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your
technique
for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am
particularly
interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with
the
scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray
points/ etc.
Thanx
Mike M.
I don't actually have a single regime, but a rather variable recipe which
I adapt ad hoc depending on the problems that emerge. But I'll try and
give an idea.
First off, nowadays I invariably use Vuescan for colour neg, scanning to
16 bits. Having messed about plenty with Insight, Binuscan and Silverfast,
I've found that whilst all of them can give very good results a lot of the
time, each can occasionally result in a scan which an utter b*tch to sort
out. Vuescan just seems more consistent, or at least I have evolved a way
of working with it which works reliably for me. But this route is slow,
far slower and requiring vastly more effort from me than the others. This
suits me because I would rather scan once then do things incrementally.
With the others, any significant problem I can't fix usually means
re-scanning.
I aim to do the gross colour correction in Vuescan ('cos it's rather good
at it), but leave levels, saturation and final tweaking of curves and
colour to be done in PS. VS handles mask removal, so I don't even need to
think about that.
Typically this will mean using VS with 'white balance' selected, but
sometimes it isn't the best choice. This is just a trial and error thing,
based on the preview from memory. Whatever is closest to ballpark is best.
I'll select VS image controls so I get a scan which has headroom at both
ends - ie from dark grey to pale grey rather than max.black to white
highlights. VS default white point setting is too high for me, so I reset
it to 0.01. I want to try and get everything off the film at this stage
and make those decisions later in PS.
Typically the VS output scan will look washed out, low contrast and
desaturated as a result. This is good! With 16bits, there's plenty of room
for improving things.
First job in PS is to open the VS scan000n.tif file and do all the tedious
spotting and damage correction then save the image over itself. Then again
immediately to a different name/location. That way I can always go back,
or create another version with different corrections for a layer. This is
often the easiest way to get good highlights and good shadows in one image
- two separately corrected scans from the same VS original.
(Spotting is why I hate to have to go back and re-scan - it means
re-spotting and that takes ages and is criminally boring).
With a scan that is otherwise fairly correctly colour balanced, I'll then
set the levels. I'll clip the black point slightly, leave a bit of
highlight headroom, and get the overall gamma about right with the midtone
slider. Sometimes all that needs doing after that is to increase
saturation - I usually have to dial in +30 to +40 or so. Other times, I'll
need to revisit levels (or contrast/brightness) as well - it just depends.
Logically it would seem more sensible to increase the saturation as the
very first step (to make colour errors more obvious), but I find I can
never get it right if I do it before levels and have to adjust it again
anyhow.
With a scan which is 'off' regarding colour, there are various things I'll
try depending on what I think will work best. Usually I'll start with
levels again, and the channel histograms can be useful. I generally fix
the black point first using the slider, again clipped a bit. What happens
next is a bit suck it and see. You can mess about with the midtone and
highlight sliders on each channel, but this can result in chaos. If that
sort of thing is necessary, I find curves more intuitive and precise.
A useful shortcut to correcting casts is to double-click on the PS
highlight tool and set the tool to the tone and colour you want to
achieve. For example if you have a bit of white shirt collar which is
looking a murky pale blue/cyan, you'd select a neutral near-white. Drop
that on the offending bit of collar and PS will adjust the whole image :
magic! (though it can take some experimentation with the sample area, and
the precise tone/colour you want). This works particularly well for colour
negs shot in flourescent or tungsten, but it's best IMO to leave some
trace of the illuminant colour - fully corrected just looks wrong.
You can do the same thing with the shadow
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables. Nope, you are quite right - a profile should classically be just be a straight translation mechanism. However... there is a case for a family of profiles which characterise the film under a variety of illuminant conditions. That seems to be what DH is proposing. But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work. Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. Yup. Except with colour neg, there's this whole range of not-very-standard conditions which have to be factored in. That's why nobody bothers with ICC for colour neg - a single, standard profile really doesn't get you very far. However I can forsee the ICC fundamentalists sharpening their knives and sparking a terminological Jihad : it may keep the peace better to stick with the standard understanding of a single profile, and offer preset adjustment macros to cope with the variables - or do as other s/w does, rely on adjustments based on white point or whatever. I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. I'll be interested to see if the Polaroid approach works, and until then I'm not doing soothsaying again :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. I think I missed this. What settings do you use to access this type of correction?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your technique for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am particularly interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with the scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray points/ etc. Thanx Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables. Nope, you are quite right - a profile should classically be just be a straight translation mechanism. However... there is a case for a family of profiles which characterise the film under a variety of illuminant conditions. That seems to be what DH is proposing. But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work. Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. Yup. Except with colour neg, there's this whole range of not-very-standard conditions which have to be factored in. That's why nobody bothers with ICC for colour neg - a single, standard profile really doesn't get you very far. However I can forsee the ICC fundamentalists sharpening their knives and sparking a terminological Jihad : it may keep the peace better to stick with the standard understanding of a single profile, and offer preset adjustment macros to cope with the variables - or do as other s/w does, rely on adjustments based on white point or whatever. I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. I'll be interested to see if the Polaroid approach works, and until then I'm not doing soothsaying again :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in
the mask layer.
But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
according to processing.
Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they
do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent
as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get
to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or
lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less
than chrome films.
It's true I don't see a lot of variation in C41 films of the same type,
but it's not the film which varies, it's the image. The scanning task is
quite different from scanning slide. With slide, you have a fixed
reference, with neg it's interpretive.
The source of difficulty here is the latitude of C41 and ability to
produce uncorrected results across a wide range of colour temperature and
exposure which you sort out later. With slide, you have next to no
tolerance. If it's screwed on the film, you aren't going to be able to do
a great deal with the scan as the wide OD range occupies all, or nearly
all, of the dynamic range of the scan.
If you always shoot colneg under more or less controlled conditions, and
place exposure on the same part of the curve (conditions more or less
imposed by slide) then, yes, I would believe profiling could be done with
reasonable precision - given a consistent lab.
But the utility of colneg is the amazing ~10stop range, which enables
exposure to be located however you want on the curve, and allows enormous
liberties to be taken with illuminant colour, including mixed sources.
In this scenario, the colneg is only a waypoint on route to the final
image which exists nowhere except in your head. You absolutely don't want
a mechanical, invariant translation as you would with slide+profiles. It
will look horrible, say, to get a 'straight' scan of an image taken under
flourescent without filtration.
You have a lot of freedom to muck about with values, as most images leave
plenty of headroom once scanned.
DH's suggestion of a ring-around of profiles seems like it maybe a handy
shortcut from the info locked up in the neg to an image which approximates
what you were after, at least part of the way - by mapping response for
film under a variety of conditions.
To restate St Ansel for the C21st 'The negative is the score, the print is
the performance, and profiles are pianola rolls' :)
I'm sure you know all this stuff anyhow, and do it anyhow ('I am the
colour management' :-) All I'd add is : isn't it curious how much colour
correction can vary from one neg to the next, even when taken in the same
place and same time.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner
info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily
in
the mask layer.
But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
according to processing.
Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as
they
do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as
consistent
as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you
get
to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer
or
lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less
than chrome films.
It's true I don't see a lot of variation in C41 films of the same
type,
but it's not the film which varies, it's the image. The scanning
task is
quite different from scanning slide. With slide, you have a fixed
reference, with neg it's interpretive.
The source of difficulty here is the latitude of C41 and ability to
produce uncorrected results across a wide range of colour
temperature and
exposure which you sort out later. With slide, you have next to no
tolerance. If it's screwed on the film, you aren't going to be able
to do
a great deal with the scan as the wide OD range occupies all, or
nearly
all, of the dynamic range of the scan.
If you always shoot colneg under more or less controlled conditions,
and
place exposure on the same part of the curve (conditions more or
less
imposed by slide) then, yes, I would believe profiling could be done
with
reasonable precision - given a consistent lab.
That was my point. I mentioned shooting in the studio, but outdoors
in sunlight should be about the same.
But the utility of colneg is the amazing ~10stop range, which
enables
exposure to be located however you want on the curve, and allows
enormous
liberties to be taken with illuminant colour, including mixed
sources.
True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or
the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an
accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first
results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really
blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables.
In this scenario, the colneg is only a waypoint on route to the
final
image which exists nowhere except in your head. You absolutely don't
want
a mechanical, invariant translation as you would with
slide+profiles. It
will look horrible, say, to get a 'straight' scan of an image taken
under
flourescent without filtration.
But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the
same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the
chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work.
Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to
establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. So
I *do* want an invarient translation for most work, and perhaps even
as a point of departure in editing difficult material, or at the very
least as a frame of reference. If it really works accurately, time is
saved!
Canned neg profiles may be generally less accurate than dynamic
profiles (?), and part of the perception that neg profiles are useless
may come from this. Practical color management is still so new that I
can imagine a few other reasons why neg profiles might seem useless
most of the time.
You have a lot of freedom to muck about with values, as most images
leave
plenty of headroom once scanned.
DH's suggestion of a ring-around of profiles seems like it maybe a
handy
shortcut from the info locked up in the neg to an image which
approximates
what you were after, at least part of the way - by mapping response
for
film under a variety of conditions.
To restate St Ansel for the C21st 'The negative is the score, the
print is
the performance, and profiles are pianola rolls' :)
And profiteroles served after the performance. :)
I'm sure you know all this stuff anyhow, and do it anyhow ('I am the
colour management' :-) All I'd add is : isn't it curious how much
colour
correction can vary from one neg to the next, even when taken in the
same
place and same time.
Hummm, can't say I've noticed color variations of this sort, in the
darkroom or on the desktop. Maybe later. :)
Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
Maris wrote: I take Ed's comment, that the goal is a *custom* base removal for that any particular film, and to make the image look as much like the original scene as possible, means making it look like the original as captured by that particular film, but not making it look like the original as a generic person would see it. Otherwise, the different mask settings for the different films would seem to be spurious. Conversly, i.e. the other side of the coin, is that one can use Default or Image as the original preview scan, and then use any one of the film-type profiles to alter the appearance of the picture, using the Scan Memory facility of Vuescan, regardless of what film you happened to be using that day (or in my case, what film Whomever happened to be using). :-) Seems to me, this gives an artistic photographer a lot more lattitude than just loading up the favorite film and banging away. Excuse me if I'm missing something here, but I've always thought that artistic expression was always enhanced by the artist's recognizing the value of Happy Accident. Nothing against total control (I envy it), but sometimes the suprise is better that our plans. Not always, of course, but sometimes. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only approximate too. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? How do you propose to transpose the colour and density values of the film to RGB bit values? The film has its characteristics, so does the scanner. Either you use profiles, which maintain a fixed relationship between input and output, or you adjust the scanning process to get the result you want, or you do a mixture of both. The adjustment can be hardwired and beyond user control, or under user control via software settings, or a mixture of both. In other words, you don't have to use profiles but you do have to do /something/ - and if you cannot, the decisions have already been made for you by the mfr. But you cannot dodge the necessity. And people do it all the time in the darkroom by choosing paper and chemistry characteristics and varying filtration and exposure. LATER Just seen your later wry comment that 'I am the colour management':-) Well, I agree with that approach but it takes a lot of time and skill to get it right as you can find yourself juggling many different parameters. EG crossed curves can be real brain-ache, and hard to identify and fix (is this shadow cast blue, cyan, or bluey-cyan or cyan-blue?). I think DH is proposing a ring-around set of corrections from which the user chooses the one that looks most plausible, implemented as profiles. This seems potentially quite a useful aid for the operator, especially the less skilled/more impatient, and may help get images in the ballpark. Vuescan's use of automatic white balance aims at the same place, as does using PS highlight dropper to achieve the same thing - you just use whatever tools you feel comfortable with. The Mk1 eyeball is the only final arbiter. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:13:30 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) Not for more than a few minutes. And it's very cruel of you to ask this g Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only approximate too. I've generally found those film-type profiles (not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Rafe wrote: I've generally found those film-type profiles (not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. Photoshop also has no film profiles, and also does a good job of inverting a negative image. Is it White Point, Balance, or what? Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the staple of high end scanners for over 10 years. What questions did you have?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, though my experience with chromes in recent years has been limited. OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer professional processing labs, either, and my subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why are those negative-film profiles so consistently clueless? rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the staple of high end scanners for over 10 years. The 8000 ED gives it a nice run for the money, Austin. I dare say -- it's even better. Though I don't expect you'll agree, without some convincing. I'd have to see a BW scan comparison, that's what matters to me ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
- Original Message - From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, though my experience with chromes in recent years has been limited. OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer professional processing labs, either, and my subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why are those negative-film profiles so consistently clueless? rafe b. Good question, I can't say I know the answer. Perhaps it's because processing varies so much in the real world, and that would make Tony right and me wrong. I suppose the standards of NYC pro labs have spoiled me and warped my perspective on these things. g Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
In a message dated 6/8/2001 8:11:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse HD curve, presumably, plus a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the same. This is exactly the design goal of PhotoCD, and it's a design goal of VueScan. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
on 6/10/01 6:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse HD curve, presumably, plus a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the same. This is exactly the design goal of PhotoCD, and it's a design goal of VueScan. wow your design goal is to eliminate the specific characteristics of individual emulsions??? which we as photographers CHOOSE because we like the rendering??? genuinely speechless in Toronto -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
In a message dated 6/10/2001 9:23:24 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: your design goal is to eliminate the specific characteristics of individual emulsions??? The design goal is to reproduce the actual scene as much as possible. Displaying the scene on a calibrated monitor should look like the original scene as much as possible. which we as photographers CHOOSE because we like the rendering??? If you set the film terms to the default, the image should end up looking like the print you'd get back from Kodak. It's only if you set the film type to match the actual film that you'll end up matching the scene. Similarly with slide film, if you set Device|Media type to Image you'll get a scan that looks like the slide. If you set it to Slide film, you'll get a scan that looks like the original scene. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
At 23:07 08/06/01, you wrote: Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. My lab once told me that my prints were not up to their usual excellence because we haven't got the Supra profile right yet. So I understand that minilabs DO use individual film profiles for some purpose. That said I agree with Austin that this is not the best way to go for a scanner - for three reasons: a) as Johnny said, emulsions change with bewildering rapidity, so even if you try hard you can be trapped without the correct profile. b) as Austin said, the exposure and light source used when taking the photo etc must change the characteristics c) films change from nominal characteristics before and after exposure - so there is no accurate reference anyway. Changes start as soon as the film is out of the fridge, and fading can easily take a film a long way from the assumed profile. The point of using profiles of course is to match the scanner's filter characteristics (or LED bandwidth) with the film response curves, and to remove the mask of a neg. But there is an alternative, and that is for the scanner to do some kind of analysis of the film itself and attempt to automatically profile the film and hence produce a good automatic scan. (which is what I thought minilabs did until the exchange quoted above). This is what the Nikons do, by means which are beyond me, and IMHO they do it very well. I have used only five film scanner/software combinations in my time, but the Nikon with Nikon ver 3 software is IME far and away the best at producing good default scans. With ROC I imagine it is even better. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
The point of using profiles of course is to match the scanner's filter characteristics (or LED bandwidth) with the film response curves I don't believe that's quite right. Those are two separate issues. Typically, there is a CCD response curve embedded in the scanner in the form of a LUT, which corrects for the non-linearity of the CCD. That is separate from the tonal curves you apply either manually or by using a film profile.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. I, also, think there's merit in your plan and I hope it works. Do you think it will work well enough for a colorblind person like me to get "acceptable" results? I get decent results with E-6 transparency film, but my one feeble attempt with negative film didn't go well. For E-6, I use SilverFast rather than Insight (for my SS4000) because it can be IT-8 calibrated. I'm getting close to having my workflow nailed down so that I don't need to do any color corrections; I just make the E-6 scan and do an occasional contrast or brightness tweak in SilverFast. I usually shoot in a studio setting, so I have total control over exposure, contrast, lighting, etc. I normally shoot medium format negative film and when a client needs something for the web, I have to shoot some 35 mm E-6 in addition so that I can scan it with my SS4000. A good negative profiling system for the SS 120 would allow me to shoot medium format negative film for virtually all of my jobs. I have a Microtek ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner with IT-8 calibrated ScanWizard software that I can use to scan medium format film, but its ScanWizard software has limited negative film profiles (none for Kodak 160NC that I use) and I could find none that were even close to acceptable. Being colorblind, I want the machinery to do what I can't. And even if I had good color vision, I'd still want to as little "mothering" of the negative scan as I could get away with. My time is too valuable to do by hand what technology can when enough money is thrown at it.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. I don't really understand what you're after... A raw scan every time? Absolutely not! I don't do raw scans. What I was trying to say, was get the scan right in the scanner driver (setpoints and tonal curves). Learning how to use setpoints and tonal adjustments in the scanner driver can go a LONG way. Clean negatives goes a long way too ;-) All tonal adjustments have to be done with high bit data, and for me, that means in the scanner. My scanner gets the tonal adjustments downloaded to it, and performs that on the fly, so only 8 bit data gets send to the PC.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Right, but it saved a lot of time... I could then concentrate on tweaking instead of starting all over again for every image. I believe that this is what Polaroid is after... Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't really understand what you're after... A raw scan every time? Once again, we're talking about options. For the people that want to get really involved, there are the raw scans from vuescan to work with. For people that don't want to bother, there are a variety of programs available that can get pretty decent results right off the bat, and for many people that's all they need. This is all Polaroid is offering, another option... Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) Yeah, but you gotta start somewhere... I am all in favor of making technology more accessible to people. There are many that refer to this as dumbing down, but without exception, the people that use that phrase already know how to use that piece of equipment...:-) Isaac
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've received some why bother and it's a bad idea comments from Austin Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. 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. I do believe that it will do some people some good, as a starting point. But to believe that you can just 'pick your film' and your scan will be perfect, I think would not be the case, and lead to disappointment. As a note, I don't believe other vendors are taking this approach, for what ever reason. Anyone know if I mistaken about this?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is ineffective film terms. What do you believe film terms are? There are two issues here (well three actually). One is the film it self, two is the image on the film, and three is the scanner. Of course, I want to color correct for the image on the film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for the scanner. Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they are image dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the correct setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film. The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management. I am the scanner color management! Scanner color management is somewhat dubious, IMO. Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all somewhat consistent...more so than film! I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! Obviously, the level of accuracy required of monitor and printer profiles isn't possible or required. I don't remember suggesting otherwise. If you don't want to use film terms (profiles), then don't. The scanner police won't break down your door, I promise. Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach I fail to see the reason for your original post. Really Austin, what is the problem? Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) And what would you know of humility g
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) Since you profess interest in both humility and learning, I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Dave
filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
OK, here's my 2 cents on this. First, Polaroid are not alone in offering this. Silverfast ships with a bunch of profiles, as does Vuescan. Are they helpful? NO. The first problem is that they don't keep up to date with the emulsions. It is extremely confusing trying to work out which profile goes with which emulsion. Vuescan for example has profiles for Tmax 400 in D76 at various contrast indices, but no profiles for TriX or any Ilford films. It has profiles for all six generations of Kodak Gold 400 but nothing for 400 VC. And so on. Silverfast has profiles called Kodak 1, Kodak 2 and Kodak 3 but no clue as to which emulsions they refer to. So, inevitably, they are out of date as soon as shipped. The second problem is that it's never clear what these 'profiles' are supposed to do. I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse HD curve, presumably, plus a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the same. The Silverfast profiles, for their part, apply a custom 'color space expansion', which means that they come with predefined min/max set points for the individual color channels. Does this *actually* work on color neg? No. Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. The third problem is that *even if the profiles were useful and worked properly* film developing varies so much that you always have to tweak afterwards. I wish scanner manufacturers would stick to the knitting. What is ACTUALLY useful (ok, to me) in a scanner driver? -- faithful rendition of *actual image colors* in all cases. In other words, proper calibration of the scanner CCD. Silverfast does this well on the SS4000. -- ability to handle color neg properly. This is SO simple and yet rarely done well. In essence, remove the orange mask, invert and set the expansion points for the individual channels. Vuescan does this well, but the GUI is very confusing which negates the benefit. -- ability to handle bw neg properly. As Austin says this means set black/white points and tonal curve. This means we need a good, detailed histogram and a curves box which functions as well as the industry standard, Photoshop. Neither Silverfast nor Polascan are up to snuff on this. -- the ability to output gamma-corrected high-bit scans. In the case of neg, inverted gamma corrected high bit scans. In the case of color neg, mask removal on high bit scans. -- intuitive GUI which reflects standard interface guidelines. Silverfast, Polascan and Vuescan all fail miserably on this one. Polascan not quite as miserably as the others. Now, once you can do all this you can add as many consumer-friendly bells and whistles as you like. But UNTIL you can do it... yeah, well, you get it. So, film profiles? Who cares? There's a lot of stuff to get right first. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind pointing me to where the list is?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach What other scanner have film profiles? I fail to see the reason for your original post. I was questioning the reality of the usefulness of film profiles, given the inability to actually control a number of the variables. Simple as that. I don't dispute they are useful for some, but I believe that use is more limited than I took the intent to be.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind pointing me to where the list is? http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
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: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
LOL... Good god. Some people REALLY like to hear/read themselves speak don't they? Lawrence The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 rhododendron back to life! ;-p Todd
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I´m on, remember me the distributor in sweden that you helped our decades ago when I had a ss120 and no drivers... Still remember the beer I promised you... Best regards, Stefan on 01-06-06 23.41, Hemingway, David J at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Please contact me directly OFF LIST Thank you David Hemingway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is ineffective film terms. What do you believe film terms are? There are two issues here (well three actually). One is the film it self, two is the image on the film, and three is the scanner. Of course, I want to color correct for the image on the film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for the scanner. Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they are image dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the correct setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film. The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management. I am the scanner color management! Scanner color management is somewhat dubious, IMO. Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all somewhat consistent...more so than film! I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use!
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin wrote: I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is ineffective film terms. Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't like them. The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... Isaac
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-)
filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Please contact me directly OFF LIST Thank you David Hemingway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by negative profiles, and why one would need them.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't like them. Austin Austin, Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system into a device independent space. There is very little difference in the system response for E6 films so one profile per device works well. Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes form film to film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These complications are why there are no ICC profiles for negatives. Polaroid and others have developed profiles that help characterize various specific negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative profiles for the 120 scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these profiles are either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw scan. We are developing a ring around profiling scheme where each profile will have several related profiles to address common exposure differences. All to get better scans quicker. David -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by negative profiles, and why one would need them.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, I think we may be talking by each other a bit. ICC profiles do contain several LUTS including sophisticated 3d luts. These negative profiles will be similar wich ring around sub sets to correct for specific conditions such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, over and under saturation. The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to determine if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. David P.S. we won't force anyone to use them :) -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme Austin, All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic talents to effect the final product. In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by default the raw data from the ccd. David, raw data has nothing to do with film profiling. Setpoints have nothing to do with film profiling. The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a matrix filter or profile. What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is thresholded with the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the non-linearity of the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you make. You can do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints are applied, it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If you are getting 8 bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of the data between the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do that. The CCD is already profiled in the firmware of the scanner. I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic talents to effect the final product. In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by default the raw data from the ccd. David, raw data has nothing to do with film profiling. Setpoints have nothing to do with film profiling. The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a matrix filter or profile. What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is thresholded with the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the non-linearity of the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you make. You can do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints are applied, it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If you are getting 8 bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of the data between the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do that. The CCD is already profiled in the firmware of the scanner. I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic talents to effect the final product. In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by default the raw data from the ccd. The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a matrix filter or profile. What you see on the CRT is NOT what the scanner. The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. All of these tasks are done in the process of printing negatives. Not a whole lot different. David -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme David, That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't like them. Austin Austin, Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system into a device independent space. There is very little difference in the system response for E6 films so one profile per device works well. Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes form film to film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These complications are why there are no ICC profiles for negatives. Polaroid and others have developed profiles that help characterize various specific negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative profiles for the 120 scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these profiles are either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw scan. We are developing a ring around profiling scheme where each profile will have several related profiles to address common exposure differences. All to get better scans quicker. David -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by negative profiles, and why one would need them.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
These negative profiles will be similar wich ring around sub sets What's a ring around sub sets? to correct for specific conditions such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, But isn't that what a tonal curve adjustment box is supposed to do, or are you saying you will supply a button for the operator to push if s/he sees one of these conditions, and it will automatically set the curve for you? The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to determine if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. David If it is just film characteristic profiling, I would say no...but film characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you mentioned above, isn't it?
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. I think all current generation CCD's try to do this, but there's still a point at which charge leaks between pixels. This may be true for linear CCDs, but it is definitely not standard for scientific CCDs. When I last looked about 3 years ago, NO scientific CCDs were available with anti-blooming. Dean Shough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
Rafe thanks - I do this sort of thing regularly (shows I am not good at taking flat, well-lit shots!). The problem I was discussing arises when you get blooming from one scanner exposure to another - then it becomes difficult if not impossible to combine them satisfactorily using these techniques. The difficulty is that the blooming extends over a small "dark" area of the hi-exposure scan that is therefore not covered satisfactorily by that scan, but it is also not covered satisfactorily by the low- exposure scan (still too dark). You get horrible edges, whether you use the manual masking that you describe, or a kind of semi-automatic masking such as using one of the image exposures (inverted) as the mask. (the last technique was described here some time ago, but I have found doing it manually to be better in general). It is only a problem where your image has very high contrast at an edge, not when you get more gradual changes. It is possible that if I were more careful I might be able to do it better, so that I was using the low exposure pass for the edges of the "dark side", which you probably would not notice. This I gather is what Dean is doing in his software - which I think would make a great photoshop plug-in. Dean wrote: Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. Anyone know if any of the linear CCDs used in scanners have this? A way around this problem is to throw away any pixels above a certain value PLUS its neighbors. These pixels get their values from a lower exposure pass. I have implemented this type of multi exposure for a completely different type of application and it works fairly well. Afraid this won't be of any use to you - the combining of multiple exposure levels was done in a custom application written in C++ running under Unix. It was just one small part of a much larger program that I helped write. Let me describe some of what the software did and how it might relate to combining images taken with different exposure levels. The software was using multiple exposure levels to obtain information from scenes containing extremely high dynamic ranges. In order to capture the entire range, we would take 3 or 4 sets of images, each with 4 times the exposure of the previous set. The limitation was haze from the bright reflections swamping out the dark regions and blooming causing entire regions of the CCD to be unusable. In order to eliminate this, we would physically block the light from the very brightest regions while taking the longer exposure images. Our base image would be the darkest image - the brightest spot would be just below saturation on the camera. We would then take the next brightest image and create a mask for all pixels above some threshold level (below saturation). Because the blooming causes light to spill over from the blooming pixel to the adjacent pixels, we would perform a dilation operation (Photoshop grow region?) on the mask. Typically we would increase the size of the mask by two pixels in all directions. This mask would then be used to combine the information from the two images. Repeat for each additional exposure level. We were not after the image itself, but rather other information within the set of images. I expect that the hardest part for obtaining a good image would be matching the intensity levels from one image to the next. You wanted to increase the exposure time by exactly two stops but the shutter was may be off by 10-20% If I were writing a program or plugin to do the combining, I would define some overlap region where I expect pixels from both images to be reasonably good and to perform a regression on these pixels to match levels from the two images. Dean Shough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Shough, Dean wrote: more specific method? I have the same problem when trying to extract the most from some high contrast slides, and have not been really happy with some of my multiple exposure scans for this reason. Regards, Julian It's not too difficult to make intelligent "composites" from multiple passes of a slide or negative -- provided the scanner and driver have good registration from pass to pass. I've used this method on several occasions, on contrasty images. You'd use this in pretty much the same situations as you'd use a graduated-ND filter in taking the photo in the first place. A layer mask consisting of a gradient is quite helpful here. Eg., make one scan optimized for the sky, one for foreground. The top layer (say, the sky layer) would have a mask that goes from white to black in the region of the horizon of the photo. It's easy to set up Photoshop so that you can experiment with different gradients in the layer mask, while viewing the composite image. rafe b.
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:28:56 -0800 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. I think all current generation CCD's try to do this, but there's still a point at which charge leaks between pixels. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
At 10:17 AM 1/17/01 +1100, Julian wrote: At 04:42 17/01/01, Rafe wrote: It's not too difficult to make intelligent "composites" from multiple passes of a slide or negative -- provided the scanner and driver have good registration from pass to pass. Rafe thanks - I do this sort of thing regularly (shows I am not good at taking flat, well-lit shots!). The problem I was discussing arises when you get blooming from one scanner exposure to another - then it becomes difficult if not impossible to combine them satisfactorily using these techniques. The difficulty is that the blooming extends over a small "dark" area of the hi-exposure scan that is therefore not covered satisfactorily by that scan, but it is also not covered satisfactorily by the low- exposure scan (still too dark). You get horrible edges, whether you use the manual masking that you describe, or a kind of semi-automatic masking such as using one of the image exposures (inverted) as the mask. (the last technique was described here some time ago, but I have found doing it manually to be better in general). I've never had good luck with this method when the layer masks had sharp edges, or were based on (for example) thresholding/blurring/otherwise processing the original, or one of the color channels. When I try that, the edges and the images themselves tend to look artificial. (I think this is what those $200 masking plugins are good for... ) The only layer mask that works in these cases is one with a smooth linear gradient, to blend from one exposure to the other (eg., foreground to background.) Hence my analogy to the graduated-ND filter -- which, when you think of it, should have been used in the first place. Granted, there's a limited range of photos on which this technique is based, but the situation comes up now and then in landscape photos. The layer mask just needs a smooth transition over the appropriate region of the photo. The gradient should be "hard" enough to achieve the desired effect, but not so hard as to be noticeable. The "manual" part of this method is simply deciding where to place the gradient, and how wide to make it. rafe b.
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
Not really following this thread so I may be missing your intent...but whenever I've tried increasing exposure beyond "proper exposure", the CCD saturates (ie blooms) on those pixels that were already bright. This spills over into the neighbouring dark pixels and ruins them. Some CCDs feature anti-blooming so that this does not happen. Anyone know if any of the linear CCDs used in scanners have this? A way around this problem is to throw away any pixels above a certain value PLUS its neighbors. These pixels get their values from a lower exposure pass. I have implemented this type of multi exposure for a completely different type of application and it works fairly well.
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120
At 07:45 15/01/01, Pete wrote: All the available CCDs on the market today are limited to a dynamic range of 5000:1 (~12 bits) at normal temperatures. Aha! That is the figure I was wondering about. Thanks so much for this useful and factual piece of info. Given the physics I would guess that noise figures are already towards thermal limits (?)and if so it is not possible to do much better without cooling. So I guess too that drum scanners etc must use photomultipliers or something other than CCDs. But we don't know whether the new Nikons do or don't use split exposures - which seems to be the logical way to go for CCD scanners - and should be easy for Nikon to implement given LED sources. Maybe they do? And probably they don't looking at the fast scan times. Multiple exposures would significantly add to the scan time. I wonder if they have considered this as a slower option. And then I wonder why, when they already do multi-passes to reduce noise as in the LS2000, why they don't up the exposure for subsequent scans? Maybe it is hard to keep things linear? Just thinking aloud, Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:22:47 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: In other words number of bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might be. Odd, 'cos that was the point of the whole original argument :) IE that bit depth constrains maximum OD range in scanners where there is linear mapping of intensity. Which is pretty much all of the ones any of us use. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowonB+H web
Hi Pete, At 10:11 13/01/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And nobody, as far as I've read, is arguing that bit depth DOES define Dmax.. What I understood from Ed's and others' original point was that manufacturers were stating their Dmax (or dynamic range or density range) based only on their D/A bit depth. That was the point of this whole discussion for my part. The original argument was that ANY old density range could be squeezed into any number of bits, wasn't it? Yes that is where I started from, but after reading the posts from the last time this was discussed, I now know this is wrong - rather it is one-way thing. You can have a density range which is anything you like so long as it is worse than that implied by the number of bits, but you can't have a density range that is better than implied by the number of bits. It is this last point that is the bone of contention - manufacturers are saying "ours is 14 bits so our density range is 4.2 wow isn't that a good figure", and that is probably crap in the case of the consumer level scanners we are talking about. It MAY be 4.2 but is most likely is much less than that - that is all I am saying ... I think. Cheers, Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
"secret standard and methodology" sounds sinister to me Actually you still have no idea what Polaroid does. Because they use a secret standard and methodology it is as completely meaningless as the manufacturer that tells you nothing. Byron
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
On 10 Jan 2001 09:04:51 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm still not convinced that there's a necessary mapping between actual density and ADC resolution. It's not 'necessary' inasmuch as it /could/ be done differently, but AFAIK the only CCD prosumer unit to do non-linear mapping was the Olympus ES10. It usually isn't because of cost, complexity, and the extra noise imposed by analogue processing - though the technique is common in PMT scanners. However it is the only way to escape the hard limit of DMax (=noise voltage):DMin (max volts), a voltage ratio which must be mapped to available bits. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:16:57 + photoscientia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Oh no! Not this again. The answer is one word - linearity. My reaction entirely :-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:54:31 -0500 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Devices are not really linear. There are a number of 'distortions'. One is offset, the second is linearity, and the third is gain. CCD's are AIUI inherently very linear. 'Offset' = CCD noise in this context, gain = 1.0 as fancy analogue amplification seems to be viewed as creating more problems than it solves, and such things are better (and cheaper) done to the digitised signal. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:44:23 -0500 Hemingway, David J ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Users have reported on this forum several times that physically scratched film does not get fixed with either solution. I /think/ ICE copes fairly well with limited emulsion-side physical damage, but not at all with base damage. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web
Oh no! Not this again. The answer is one word - linearity. My reaction entirely :-) But linearity explains only one half of the issue - that is, that you can't do BETTER for dynamic range than what is implied by the number of bits. Linearity doesn't make the most useful point that number of bits has NOTHING to do with the actual achieved density range performance when the noise level is the same as or more than the LSB. In other words number of bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might be. I read most of the old "last time" posts and still didn't see any such useful conclusion. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
Devices are not really linear. There are a number of 'distortions'. One is offset, the second is linearity, and the third is gain. I think Austin was refering to the analogue pre-amplifiers built into a lot of A/D converters. You are correct, but I was not limiting the source of the distortion to anything in particular. These distortions can be corrected in the digital or the analog domain. I prefer the digital domain. Gain and offset can be corrected for by simple multiplication and addition (you do need to do the gain multiply first), but linearity requires a LUT. I think the difficulty is in predicting or calculating the exact value of any offset. Since it'll vary with individual CCD, and with temperature. Calibration can be as simple or as difficult as the designer wants to make it, but it certainly can be done.
RE: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
If you have followed my comments on this forum for the last year or so I have been consistant in advising all not to take much stock in the OD specs of ANY manufacturer as they cannot be used to compare scanners from manufacturer to manufacturer. As a large percentage of these scanners are sold via mail order by folks who read the specs in the catalog. They know the larger the number the better the scanner. There is always pressure by sales and marketing folks to have the "Best" number in the category and you can manipulate a test procedure to move the number around. Again I say get a good comparison from an expierienced independent source or gain the expertise yourself and do your own test. David -Original Message- From: bjs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... Not sinister (at least AFIAK)...just secret. It may well be a brilliant test. We can't tell. Byron - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:42 PM Subject: RE: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... "secret standard and methodology" sounds sinister to me
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web
Finally!? - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:59 PM Subject: RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web In other words number of bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might be. Absolutely correct! It is but one piece of the system, and the system is only as good as its worst part.
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)
Hi! A 14 bit number means a range 2 raised to the power of fourteen, that is 16384. Density units are log 10 so we get log (16384) - 4.21 A simpler way: 1 bit means essentially one one aperture stop which is 0.3 Density units (log 2). 14 * 0.3 - 4.2 Or you could also say that the range is 14 aperture stops. This is more than the density range of any film... Practical measurements on existing scanners seem to indicate that the real dynamic range (including CCD, elektronics, external light internal refkections seem in the order of 2.5, that is 8-9 aperture stops. Regards Erik On Tuesday 09 January 2001 19:05, you wrote: In summary, dynamic range is just another way of saying how many bits the A/D converter uses: 10 bits = 3.0 12 bits = 3.6 14 bits = 4.2 Would you please explain this more? What is the source of the information, or the algorithm, you used to come up with these numbers? -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
David Hemingway wrote: Ice will not correct physical damage to film David, Come now, are you being deliberately provocative? :) I find ICE invaluable on film which has become scratched or mould damaged. Just to redress the balance, here's the link again to my page with some examples: http://www.greenspace.ic24.net/scanner.htm Sure meets my definition of correcting physical damage :) Al Bond
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)
Can someone help me here with some basic facts regarding this dynamic/density range business? I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. I understand the maths quoted here and in many other posts, but fail to understand why the fact that the ratio of smallest bit size to largest number represented should be related to density range. For example, I could have a density range of 1000:1 - ie 3.0 on the log scale. What is to stop me representing this by 4 bits or instead by 40 bits? The only thing that changes is the resolution. In the former case, log10 (2 to the power 4) = 1.2 = "so-called calculated density range" In the latter case, log10(2 to the power 40) = 12.0 = "so-called calculated density range", but in both cases the actual density range represented is still 3.0. The difference of course is the resolution... In the former case, there are only 16 levels between darkest and lightest density. In the latter case, there are about 10^12 i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 levels. I cannot shake off the belief that the number of bits affects nothing except the resolution with which the densities are recorded, and has nothing whatsoever to do he usable density range. I thought that the density range is the ratio of: [the brightest accurately measured value through clear (fully exposed) slide film or orange mask (unexposed) neg film] vs [the darkest accurately measured value] which has nothing to do with the number of bits in the D/A. The brightest value will be determined by the level that can be read by the CCD with reasonable (predictable) linearity. The darkest value will be determined by noise performance of the CCD. What am I doing wrong? Julian At 17:44 10/01/01, you wrote: Hi! A 14 bit number means a range 2 raised to the power of fourteen, that is 16384. Density units are log 10 so we get log (16384) - 4.21 A simpler way: 1 bit means essentially one one aperture stop which is 0.3 Density units (log 2). 14 * 0.3 - 4.2 Or you could also say that the range is 14 aperture stops. This is more than the density range of any film... Practical measurements on existing scanners seem to indicate that the real dynamic range (including CCD, elektronics, external light internal refkections seem in the order of 2.5, that is 8-9 aperture stops. Regards Erik On Tuesday 09 January 2001 19:05, you wrote: In summary, dynamic range is just another way of saying how many bits the A/D converter uses: 10 bits = 3.0 12 bits = 3.6 14 bits = 4.2 Would you please explain this more? What is the source of the information, or the algorithm, you used to come up with these numbers? -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvgen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nykping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)
Julian, slight typing error... You said...2^4 gives 16 levels. and should have said...2^12 gives 4096 levels. and NOT 10^12 gives Chris. - Original Message - From: "Julian Robinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:41 AM Subject: Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...) Can someone help me here with some basic facts regarding this dynamic/density range business? I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. I understand the maths quoted here and in many other posts, but fail to understand why the fact that the ratio of smallest bit size to largest number represented should be related to density range. For example, I could have a density range of 1000:1 - ie 3.0 on the log scale. What is to stop me representing this by 4 bits or instead by 40 bits? The only thing that changes is the resolution. In the former case, log10 (2 to the power 4) = 1.2 = "so-called calculated density range" In the latter case, log10(2 to the power 40) = 12.0 = "so-called calculated density range", but in both cases the actual density range represented is still 3.0. The difference of course is the resolution... In the former case, there are only 16 levels between darkest and lightest density. In the latter case, there are about 10^12 i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 levels. I cannot shake off the belief that the number of bits affects nothing except the resolution with which the densities are recorded, and has nothing whatsoever to do he usable density range. I thought that the density range is the ratio of: [the brightest accurately measured value through clear (fully exposed) slide film or orange mask (unexposed) neg film] vs [the darkest accurately measured value] which has nothing to do with the number of bits in the D/A. The brightest value will be determined by the level that can be read by the CCD with reasonable (predictable) linearity. The darkest value will be determined by noise performance of the CCD. What am I doing wrong? Julian At 17:44 10/01/01, you wrote: Hi! A 14 bit number means a range 2 raised to the power of fourteen, that is 16384. Density units are log 10 so we get log (16384) - 4.21 A simpler way: 1 bit means essentially one one aperture stop which is 0.3 Density units (log 2). 14 * 0.3 - 4.2 Or you could also say that the range is 14 aperture stops. This is more than the density range of any film... Practical measurements on existing scanners seem to indicate that the real dynamic range (including CCD, elektronics, external light internal refkections seem in the order of 2.5, that is 8-9 aperture stops. Regards Erik On Tuesday 09 January 2001 19:05, you wrote: In summary, dynamic range is just another way of saying how many bits the A/D converter uses: 10 bits = 3.0 12 bits = 3.6 14 bits = 4.2 Would you please explain this more? What is the source of the information, or the algorithm, you used to come up with these numbers? -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvgen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nykping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)
No I did mean 10^12 being the approximate result of my postulated 40 bits i.e. 2^40 = 1.0995x10^12 ~= 10^12 I should have said... The difference of course is the resolution... In the former case, there are only 2^4 = 16 levels between darkest and lightest density. In the latter case, there are 2^40 or about 10^12 i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 levels. BTW if this is in HTML can someone tell me - on another list I had posted HTML even though I think I do not - now I look at my posts they have some indication that they could be in HTML although I cannot tell because it may be the way Eudora interprets things. Thanks, Julian At 20:27 10/01/01, you wrote: Julian, slight typing error... You said...2^4 gives 16 levels. and should have said...2^12 gives 4096 levels. and NOT 10^12 gives Chris. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:48:42 -0500 Hemingway, David J ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have said many times on this forum I would not take ANY manufacturer at face value particularly for OD. Complete agreement here. It looks like a handy point for objective comparison when written into specs, but anyone can stick a 150mph speedometer on a 120mph car. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)
Julian writes ... Can someone help me here with some basic facts regarding this dynamic/density range business? I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. ... For example, I could have a density range of 1000:1 - ie 3.0 on the log scale. What is to stop me representing this by 4 bits or instead by 40 bits? The only thing that changes is the resolution. ... What you say is true, but you haven't taken into account the CCD's response to exposure ... that is, it can't be changed. This means if you overexpose, then you either need a very high value to represent the thin area of the film, or you lose the detail in that area (washes out). For 10bits, this pixel value would have to be contrained to 1023 ... for 12bits, these values can be put between 1024 and 4096, therefore extending the range of the CCD's exposure and increasing its dynamic range (... or reducing the possibility of no detail in the shadows or highlights ...). shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
Al, Not provocative at all, just trying to be factual. I know dust removal works but at a cost of image sharpness. That is true whether it is hardware or software based. Not a Polaroid/Nikon issue. Users have reported on this forum several times that physically scratched film does not get fixed with either solution. One mans opinion David -Original Message- From: Al Bond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 2:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... David Hemingway wrote: Ice will not correct physical damage to film David, Come now, are you being deliberately provocative? :) I find ICE invaluable on film which has become scratched or mould damaged. Just to redress the balance, here's the link again to my page with some examples: http://www.greenspace.ic24.net/scanner.htm Sure meets my definition of correcting physical damage :) Al Bond
RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
Because at the ADC, optical brightness ratios (as analogue voltages) are mapped to bits in a linear fashion. But that mapping might not be correct, if the sensor is insensitive to low levels of light. That's what I got out of Julian's post. So you map what the sensor delivers in voltage to brightness and you still might not get all the details in shadows that are in the original slide. Instead the rest of the image is spread out unrealistically. I'm still not convinced that there's a necessary mapping between actual density and ADC resolution. Also, the eye doesn't work linearly to brightness. Where along the path from sensor to scanned image is the mapping performed that actually corresponds to the psychological way we perceive brightness levels? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:41:35 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. I understand the maths quoted here and in many other posts, but fail to understand why the fact that the ratio of smallest bit size to largest number represented should be related to density range. Because at the ADC, optical brightness ratios (as analogue voltages) are mapped to bits in a linear fashion. There was a long and involved discussion about this a while back. You should be able to locate the thread at the archive at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ - I think it was entitled 'Bit depth vs. OD'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:41:35 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. I understand the maths quoted here and in many other posts, but fail to understand why the fact that the ratio of smallest bit size to largest number represented should be related to density range. Because at the ADC, optical brightness ratios (as analogue voltages) are mapped to bits in a linear fashion. There was a long and involved discussion about this a while back. You should be able to locate the thread at the archive at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ - I think it was entitled 'Bit depth vs. OD'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now
Hi! The psychological issue is not really relevant, as we already have an image, having a certain intensity. If we want to show it on the computer screen we have to take into account that the phosphors of the screen are not linear. Their intensity is not proportional to the voltage. This is handled as far as I understand by the gamma correction. This make the colors look like on the screen, but also makes for a better utilisation of the available bits. For this reason it's good to have many bits in the raw scan (which has a gamma of 1), this can than be read into a image processing program where gamma and other corrections are made and the results be converted to a well utilized and visually correct density range, represented normally by 8 bits. You can try this if your scanner software can produce a raw scan. The raw scan will be very dark. If you set black and white points reasonably and change gamma (the center figure in the levels dialogue) to 1.8 (Mac) or 2.2 (PC) you should get pretty close to a normal scan done with the TWAIN module from Photoshop. Some of this conversion can be made in scanner hardware, or in the TWAIN module, or in PhotoShop. Regards Erik Kaffehr On Wednesday 10 January 2001 18:04, you wrote: Because at the ADC, optical brightness ratios (as analogue voltages) are mapped to bits in a linear fashion. But that mapping might not be correct, if the sensor is insensitive to low levels of light. That's what I got out of Julian's post. So you map what the sensor delivers in voltage to brightness and you still might not get all the details in shadows that are in the original slide. Instead the rest of the image is spread out unrealistically. I'm still not convinced that there's a necessary mapping between actual density and ADC resolution. Also, the eye doesn't work linearly to brightness. Where along the path from sensor to scanned image is the mapping performed that actually corresponds to the psychological way we perceive brightness levels? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:41:35 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am having a fundamental problem comprehending why the number of bits is even vaguely related to any supposed density range. I understand the maths quoted here and in many other posts, but fail to understand why the fact that the ratio of smallest bit size to largest number represented should be related to density range. Because at the ADC, optical brightness ratios (as analogue voltages) are mapped to bits in a linear fashion. There was a long and involved discussion about this a while back. You should be able to locate the thread at the archive at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ - I think it was entitled 'Bit depth vs. OD'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --
Re: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
- Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:42 AM Subject: Re: Dynamic range solved was Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not true at least with Polaroid. Each manufacturer has there own technique [snip] Thanks David. At least we have some idea what ONE manufacturer does. :) Rob Actually you still have no idea what Polaroid does. Because they use a secret standard and methodology it is as completely meaningless as the manufacturer that tells you nothing. Byron
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
By multi scanning Ian - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:45 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... The 3.9 dynamic range sounds unbelievable. I wonder how they achieve that? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... B+H (www.bhphoto.com) has just added the eagerly-awaited Polaroid Sprintscan 120 to its web site. Price shown is MSRP, $3999.95. Not currently in stock (of course) but expected late February. Dave F.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
Dave, Thanks for the tip. I note that they fail to mention ICE? Ian - Original Message - From: "David Freedman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:59 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... B+H (www.bhphoto.com) has just added the eagerly-awaited Polaroid Sprintscan 120 to its web site. Price shown is MSRP, $3999.95. Not currently in stock (of course) but expected late February. Dave F.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
In a message dated 1/8/2001 11:55:37 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 3.9 dynamic range sounds unbelievable. I wonder how they achieve that? 3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range. They're using a 14-bit A/D converter, which most vendors convert to a dynamic range of 4.2. I suspect Polaroid is just being conservative. Note that the Nikon 4000 ED and 8000 ED (I love these names smile) have a 14-bit A/D converter, and Nikon says the dynamic range is 4.2. The CoolScan IV ED has a 12-bit A/D converter, and Nikon says the dynamic range is 3.6 (log10(2^12) = 3.6). In summary, dynamic range is just another way of saying how many bits the A/D converter uses: 10 bits = 3.0 12 bits = 3.6 14 bits = 4.2 Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
Oh, yuck! Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian Jackson Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... By multi scanning Ian - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:45 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... The 3.9 dynamic range sounds unbelievable. I wonder how they achieve that? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ... B+H (www.bhphoto.com) has just added the eagerly-awaited Polaroid Sprintscan 120 to its web site. Price shown is MSRP, $3999.95. Not currently in stock (of course) but expected late February. Dave F.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/8/2001 11:55:37 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 3.9 dynamic range sounds unbelievable. I wonder how they achieve that? 3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range. They're using a 14-bit A/D converter, which most vendors convert to a dynamic range of 4.2. I suspect Polaroid is just being conservative. One also can have a 14-bit A/D that's only 13 bits accurate (or have some other circuitry that distorts things or introduces noise that makes the LSB irrelevant). Mike K.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range. Out of curiosity, how do you come up with this (especially the word 'means')? They're using a 14-bit A/D converter, which most vendors convert to a dynamic range of 4.2. I suspect Polaroid is just being conservative. A 14 bit converter only has 13 bits of accuracy. The LSB of a converter is always uncertain. There is also more than the converter that determines the dynamic range of the system.
