Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:06:18 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have seen banding in a SS4000 scan when using layers to bring up dark details. Under normal circumstances you would never see it though. Hmm, well, I quite often do this, and still have never seen banding. Yours must be a lemon ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Hemingway, David J wrote: Rafe, FYI, I also have a new 8000 ED that has the same banding issue but I am having a hard time getting upset over it.:) When I do the fine ccd it does get rid of the problem but when I read the help associated with the button it says that fine CCD can add as much as three times to the scan time. Having a hard time getting upset about that to. Oh well!! David Now, David, its not nice to rub salt in a wound, even if it does help to disinfect it! Art
RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Rafe wrote: Shoulda listend to my wife. She said to give up on film, get a digital camera. Hope Rafe has a good, sturdy kitchen table! ;-) --LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
At 01:04 PM 6/30/01 -, Lynn Allen wrote: Rafe wrote: Shoulda listend to my wife. She said to give up on film, get a digital camera. Hope Rafe has a good, sturdy kitchen table! ;-) --LRA Huh? Sorry, that one went right over my head. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:06:18 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have seen banding in a SS4000 scan when using layers to bring up dark details. Under normal circumstances you would never see it though. Hmm, well, I quite often do this, and still have never seen banding. Yours must be a lemon ;-) If only it *was* mine! Rob
RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Hi, Rafe, you wrote: Huh? Sorry, that one went right over my head. Reference to Steve's tongue-in-cheek remark (re the British Home Secretary's erstwhile advice in case of atomic attack) to get under the kitchen table, when he brought up a favorable example of digital photography. :-) On this side of the pond, the advice was to get under your desk (for school children). Steve (and I) meant that this discusion of digital versus film is going to get hot--always has before! No doubt, there'll be fallout. ;-) Best regards--Lynn From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:31:44 -0400 At 01:04 PM 6/30/01 -, Lynn Allen wrote: Rafe wrote: Shoulda listend to my wife. She said to give up on film, get a digital camera. Hope Rafe has a good, sturdy kitchen table! ;-) --LRA Huh? Sorry, that one went right over my head. rafe b. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:40:18 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Darned good advice, Tony. I've definitely seen this, and thought I'd misunderstood the whole process!! Unfortunately, I didn't have this information (or a scanner) 20 years ago. Still, I can avoid the problem in future with a click of a dial. :-) Unfortunately, if yours is a scanner which produces CCD shadow noise even with colour negs, this will only get worse... no free lunches Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Raphael Bustin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: but I wonder about the wisdom of overexposing C41 film that will be scanned. In my experience, it's the dense images that are more likely to stress the scanner into banding. IDLE SPECULATION This sounds to me like the old (LS30 'jaggies') Nikon stepper-motor foibles in a different guise, perhaps another resonance issue which occurs when exposure is prolonged. Maybe Ed will be able to alter timings in VS, as with the LS30... /IDLE SPECULATION No banding problems here, ever, with a SS4000. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No banding problems here, ever, with a SS4000. I have seen banding in a SS4000 scan when using layers to bring up dark details. Under normal circumstances you would never see it though. Rob
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
At 07:47 AM 6/29/01 +0100, you wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Raphael Bustin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: but I wonder about the wisdom of overexposing C41 film that will be scanned. In my experience, it's the dense images that are more likely to stress the scanner into banding. IDLE SPECULATION This sounds to me like the old (LS30 'jaggies') Nikon stepper-motor foibles in a different guise, perhaps another resonance issue which occurs when exposure is prolonged. Maybe Ed will be able to alter timings in VS, as with the LS30... /IDLE SPECULATION No banding problems here, ever, with a SS4000. Must admit I'm confused and concerned about the banding on the LS-8000 these days. I'd never noticed it before Lawrence Smith's post, a few days back (along with that awful JPG that was attached.) But since then, I've seen it a lot more often than I'd care to... A couple of things have changed over here; for one, it's been pretty hot. For another, I'm scanning mostly 35 mm, as opposed to the 645 negatives when I first received the scanner. Temperatures should be lower this weekend, so maybe I can check out the heat angle. The effect, when it appears, is usually pretty subtle. One thing I notice is that the bands are quite wide and quite periodic. Aside from that, I'm still trying to pin down just what causes it. The Super Fine Scan checkbox worked quite dramatically on one image, while I was on the phone with the Nikon tech. But the banding still appears occcasionally, on other images, even with this option selected. BTW, I think you're onto something with the theory that the Nikon illumination LEDS are not all that bright. I've also noticed (and mentioned) that the noise made by the scanner mechanism is unusually and disturbingly coarse. I can believe that the audible clicks emitted by the scanner correspond to the visible bands seen on the scans. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Rafe, FYI, I also have a new 8000 ED that has the same banding issue but I am having a hard time getting upset over it.:) When I do the fine ccd it does get rid of the problem but when I read the help associated with the button it says that fine CCD can add as much as three times to the scan time. Having a hard time getting upset about that to. Oh well!! David -Original Message- From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header) At 07:47 AM 6/29/01 +0100, you wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Raphael Bustin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: but I wonder about the wisdom of overexposing C41 film that will be scanned. In my experience, it's the dense images that are more likely to stress the scanner into banding. IDLE SPECULATION This sounds to me like the old (LS30 'jaggies') Nikon stepper-motor foibles in a different guise, perhaps another resonance issue which occurs when exposure is prolonged. Maybe Ed will be able to alter timings in VS, as with the LS30... /IDLE SPECULATION No banding problems here, ever, with a SS4000. Must admit I'm confused and concerned about the banding on the LS-8000 these days. I'd never noticed it before Lawrence Smith's post, a few days back (along with that awful JPG that was attached.) But since then, I've seen it a lot more often than I'd care to... A couple of things have changed over here; for one, it's been pretty hot. For another, I'm scanning mostly 35 mm, as opposed to the 645 negatives when I first received the scanner. Temperatures should be lower this weekend, so maybe I can check out the heat angle. The effect, when it appears, is usually pretty subtle. One thing I notice is that the bands are quite wide and quite periodic. Aside from that, I'm still trying to pin down just what causes it. The Super Fine Scan checkbox worked quite dramatically on one image, while I was on the phone with the Nikon tech. But the banding still appears occcasionally, on other images, even with this option selected. BTW, I think you're onto something with the theory that the Nikon illumination LEDS are not all that bright. I've also noticed (and mentioned) that the noise made by the scanner mechanism is unusually and disturbingly coarse. I can believe that the audible clicks emitted by the scanner correspond to the visible bands seen on the scans. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
At 05:15 PM 6/29/01 -0400, Dave H. wrote: Rafe, FYI, I also have a new 8000 ED that has the same banding issue but I am having a hard time getting upset over it.:) When I do the fine ccd it does get rid of the problem but when I read the help associated with the button it says that fine CCD can add as much as three times to the scan time. Having a hard time getting upset about that to. Oh well!! David I think it's the heat. No banding today. Weird. Shoulda listend to my wife. She said to give up on film, get a digital camera. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:14:56 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I presume you're talking C41 films here, Tony? I also presume you're saying that exposing a C41 400ASA film at EI320 improves the results but doesn't require any special treatment at the lab? Yes, C41, processed normally. ISO ratings are often a bit optimistic, and an extra half-stop or so can help reduce grain and add separation in shadow areas by adding some density. The overlapping dye clouds softens the appearance of grain boundaries. There's usually plenty of latitude to accomodate this without running into highlight blocking. Generally, if you are seeing green-blue speckle in shadows from colour neg (look like CCD noise, but can't be - CCD noise in negs afflicts highlights, the densest part of the film, and manifests as yellow/magenta speckle), giving a little more neg exposure will reduce this dramatically, as the overlapping dye clouds don't alias as badly. Incidentally Rob, could you take a look under the hood of your mail client. It appears to be your replies which are introducing the 'enhanced' subject lines to list threads. I don't know why exactly, something MIME related - see the last line below, the listserver is converting your msgs to plain text. From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A=20filmscanners=3A=20Microtek=204000=20problem=2E?= X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by punt1.cix.co.uk id f5R49l613646 Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: Yes, C41, processed normally. ISO ratings are often a bit optimistic, and an extra half-stop or so can help reduce grain and add separation in shadow areas by adding some density. The overlapping dye clouds softens the appearance of grain boundaries. There's usually plenty of latitude to accomodate this without running into highlight blocking. Maybe 1/2 stop on C41 film isn't much to quibble over, but I wonder about the wisdom of overexposing C41 film that will be scanned. In my experience, it's the dense images that are more likely to stress the scanner into banding. Alas, I have seen this even with my LS-8000. It's mortal, after all (boo hoo.) Mildly off-topic, but it's been hot as hell over here on the US east coast in the last few days, and I'm wondering if that isn't at least partly the cause of my scanner's recent misbehavior. Scans done very early this morning (while room temp was still reasonable) came out fine. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Tony wrote: Generally, if you are seeing green-blue speckle in shadows from colour neg (look like CCD noise, but can't be - CCD noise in negs afflicts highlights, the densest part of the film, and manifests as yellow/magenta speckle), giving a little more neg exposure will reduce this dramatically, as the overlapping dye clouds don't alias as badly. I'll have to give it a try. Incidentally Rob, could you take a look under the hood of your mail client. It appears to be your replies which are introducing the 'enhanced' subject lines to list threads. I don't know why exactly, something MIME related - see the last line below, the listserver is converting your msgs to plain text. I'm using Outlook Express 5.0. The text is set to plain text and the formatting to MIME with none as the text encoding. I don't think there's anything else I can do. I have to say that it's only on your replies to me that I've seen anything go awry, so it seems to be a problem with the way your email client behaves with my emails, that doesn't seem to affect anyone else? :-7 Rob
Re: filmscanners: exposing C41 for scanning ( was gibberish header)
Raphael Bustin wrote: In my experience, it's the dense images that are more likely to stress the scanner into banding. Alas, I have seen this even with my LS-8000. It's mortal, after all (boo hoo.) The more I've worked with the name we pay extra to won, the more I recognize their feet of clay ;-) Mildly off-topic, but it's been hot as hell over here on the US east coast in the last few days, and I'm wondering if that isn't at least partly the cause of my scanner's recent misbehavior. Scans done very early this morning (while room temp was still reasonable) came out fine. You might be onto something more significant than you give it credit for. You should mention this to Nikon. There are a number of possible problems here, from power supply issues (both regulation within the scanner as well as the quality of juice you are getting overall from your power company. Also, there might be a synergistic effect here, as your computer and other peripherals that are involved in scanning (memory, CPU, hard drive, SCSI connection) may also be going into a semi-faint. Also, keep in mind we are taking about very small increments of movement to create banding. Movement of the head in the scanner (due to viscosity changes of lubricants, dimensional changes of plastic and metal parts, the dimensionally of the lighting source LED network, the dimensionally of the film itself, etc, may all be changing more rapidly than normally or at least more extremely than under design and test conditions. Lastly, we know that CCDs work best under cool conditions. So, power sources, power supplies, computer chips, peripherals, film stock and scanner components themselves could all enter into this. If you have some air conditioning, why not try putting it on and see if lowering the room temperature helps to resolve the problems? Art rafe b.
