Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
;-]Ummm...Sambuca... -Brendan --- David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 21, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: > > >> - Dave (still remembers the days of handheld > >> document scanners) > > > > Yep, I had one of those. I remember vainly > attempting > > to stitch images together with it. It was a joke. > And > > the OCR program was laughable. > > We used to get all sorts of funky effects by > deliberately dragging it > around in arcs, going backwards, etc. > > At the time it was the only (relatively) affordable > way we had to > embed graphics into the documents we were creating. > IIRC it required > a dedicated ISA card: none of this FireWire rubbish! > > > Ah, those were the days... > > Not really; I hadn't discovered sambuca ;) > > - Dave > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
They were handy for taking notes out of books though. Nowadays my scanners are just gathering dust. That is because I am doing some drywalling in the apartment. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Brendan MacRae wrote: > > --- David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> - Dave (still remembers the days of handheld >> document scanners) >> > > Yep, I had one of those. I remember vainly attempting > to stitch images together with it. It was a joke. And > the OCR program was laughable. > > Ah, those were the days... > > -Brendan > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
HP finally perfected them, sold as the Capshare, the hardware and software worked wonderfully. but they didn't sell very well. If you can find one used they often sell for more than they did new. Brendan MacRae wrote: >--- David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>- Dave (still remembers the days of handheld >>document scanners) >> >> >> > >Yep, I had one of those. I remember vainly attempting >to stitch images together with it. It was a joke. And >the OCR program was laughable. > >Ah, those were the days... > >-Brendan > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
On Sep 21, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: >> - Dave (still remembers the days of handheld >> document scanners) > > Yep, I had one of those. I remember vainly attempting > to stitch images together with it. It was a joke. And > the OCR program was laughable. We used to get all sorts of funky effects by deliberately dragging it around in arcs, going backwards, etc. At the time it was the only (relatively) affordable way we had to embed graphics into the documents we were creating. IIRC it required a dedicated ISA card: none of this FireWire rubbish! > Ah, those were the days... Not really; I hadn't discovered sambuca ;) - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
On 21/09/06, David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 21, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > Exactly the opposite for me. Scanning negatives is a piece of cake, > > scanning slides I always hate the results. > > The reason I hate scanning slides is because a computer screen can't > duplicate the sheer brightness, contrast and colour saturation of a > slide on my light box. You could always match the light box to the screen :-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
--- David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Dave (still remembers the days of handheld > document scanners) > Yep, I had one of those. I remember vainly attempting to stitch images together with it. It was a joke. And the OCR program was laughable. Ah, those were the days... -Brendan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > Getting good results from film scans requires a lot of work. Colour > balance from reality is much easier to do than from a neg. And it > doesn't help that the Minolta software isn't exactly great. My advice is to use the Minolta software only to set the gain on each channel so you get as much data as possible without blowing anything out. Everything else is done in Photoshop. In Photoshop, all I usually need to do is set black & white points and add a quick adjustment curve to control the midtones. Having said that, each 35mm slide takes me about 30 minutes to scan & process. Medium format takes longer, especially as dICE seems to let so much more dust through :( - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
On Sep 21, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Exactly the opposite for me. Scanning negatives is a piece of cake, > scanning slides I always hate the results. The reason I hate scanning slides is because a computer screen can't duplicate the sheer brightness, contrast and colour saturation of a slide on my light box. I hate scanning negs because I can never get the colours quite right, but I've improved my technique a bit since I last tried. - Dave (still remembers the days of handheld document scanners) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Exactly the opposite for me. Scanning negatives is a piece of cake, scanning slides I always hate the results. I've probably scanned several thousand negatives and slides since 1995 when I first had access to a film scanner. It's a pain in the ass no matter what you do, but with practice you can make it work well. Digital capture is much cleaner and higher quality with much less labor involved. Godfrey On Sep 20, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > Apart from having to spot dust specks, I don't mind > scanning slides. > > Scanning negatives is miserable, though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Paul Stenquist wrote: > But at 1000 ppi or even 2000, it's far too small to make a good 11 x > 14 or 11 x 17. For a good sized print, you wold need the 4000 ppi. At > 2000, I would guess you could make a barely adequate 8 x 10 or 8 x12. That's true, of course. But it depends on (a) why you're scanning them and (b) how much pain you're willing to endure. :-) If all I'm trying to do is preserve a moment in time or something, then I'm not very worried about eventually making an 11 x 14 or larger. And if I /am/ worried about it, I'm willing to endure more pain. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
But at 1000 ppi or even 2000, it's far too small to make a good 11 x 14 or 11 x 17. For a good sized print, you wold need the 4000 ppi. At 2000, I would guess you could make a barely adequate 8 x 10 or 8 x12. Paul On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Timothy Sherburne wrote: > >> Frankly, I'm doing this to get older images into digital format to >> share >> with friends and family. I don't need fine-art quality, but clean, >> color-balanced scans that accurately represent the original image >> with a >> minimum of fuss would be nice. Anybody know of a decent service >> for this? > > I have a Canon Canoscan FS4000US, and I use the Canon software, or the > Canon TWAIN driver through Photoshop 7. At its highest resolution of > 4000 ppi, I have to deal with a lot of "grain aliasing" or "grain > noise" > or whatever you want to call it. If I turn the resolution down to > 2000 > ppi, or especially 1000 ppi, I find that I can just take the scans > direct from the scanner, crop off ten or twenty pixels of overscan all > around, and I'm done. The FS4000US has been fabulously color > "matched" > using the sRGB color space from the moment I pulled it out of its box. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Apart from having to spot dust specks, I don't mind scanning slides. Scanning negatives is miserable, though. Rick --- "Ralf R. Radermacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Merely haven't done any colour film scanning since I > got my DS, almost a > year ago. Now, I've had to find I've lost about > three years' worth of > film scans and I'm starting all over again. > > Seems I had almost forgotten what a drag this is. > How can it be that a > 700 euro dedicated film scanner and a computer that > performance-wise > would have been the pride and joy of every met > service, just a few years > ago, aren't able to produce a remotely correct > colour balance while > every cheapo digicam can? > > Still have to see the first colour picture from my > DS come out only half > (make that a tenth, actually) as bad as what I'm > getting from a > computer/scanner system that has cost several times > the price of the DS. > > Ralf > > *) Minolta 5400 > **) Mac Dual G5 > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, > Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. > 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Timothy Sherburne wrote: > Frankly, I'm doing this to get older images into digital format to share > with friends and family. I don't need fine-art quality, but clean, > color-balanced scans that accurately represent the original image with a > minimum of fuss would be nice. Anybody know of a decent service for this? I have a Canon Canoscan FS4000US, and I use the Canon software, or the Canon TWAIN driver through Photoshop 7. At its highest resolution of 4000 ppi, I have to deal with a lot of "grain aliasing" or "grain noise" or whatever you want to call it. If I turn the resolution down to 2000 ppi, or especially 1000 ppi, I find that I can just take the scans direct from the scanner, crop off ten or twenty pixels of overscan all around, and I'm done. The FS4000US has been fabulously color "matched" using the sRGB color space from the moment I pulled it out of its box. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
One way to greatly speed up film scans is to use your DSLR as the scanner. You need a macro lens, the film scanner negative or slide holder to hold your film flat, some kind of a bracket to hold the film in front of the macro lens, a blue filter to help cancel the orange mask in negative film, and a light source. I bolted the camera to a 2x6" piece of wood using the same quick release brackets which my Manfrotto tripods use. Some 90 degree angle brackets from the hardware store keep the film at right angles to the lens. Some screws run into the 2x6" wood keep the negative holder level and high enough in front of the lens. A square blue filter is between the negatives and the light box, and the box is sitting on the table behind it all, shining through the filter, through the negatives, then right into the macro lens. Take some paper and cut out a rectangular hole, then place this mask on the surface of the light box to let in enough light to shine on the negative without swamping the entire lens with white light. Manual white balance on a clear empty frame. Watch your contrast and exposure so you don't blow either end of the histogram. I use this contraption each time we do a wedding, since we have some film secondary cameras (K1000 is still in use!). You can do a roll almost as fast as you can cut the negatives and get them in front of the lens. There is still plenty of color correction per image, but you can get some nice results. Note that the resolution of the scan is no better than the resolution of your digital camera. The final image is not as good as if you had taken the image with the digital camera in the first place. It's still better than the kind of scan you get from the local quick lab, though. I found it useful to have a local pro lab do the film development. Hardly any dust or scratches compared to the cheap labs. Blast everything with a blower bulb before scanning. I really wish the industry had made better film scanning available at the time of development. They could still have a stong film demand if their scans were better. Automatic dust and scratch removal, less file compression, and a bias against blown highlights (WOW! SUPER CONTRAST AND COLORS!!!) could have made the local lab machine a much better film scanner. By the way, the local machine has around 1200x1800 resolution, but each pixel is scanned by three colors, unlike most digital cameras, so the image quality can be much closer to a 6M pixel camera than you might expect. Too bad they then compress it and blast the highlights so much. Brian -- Brian Dunn Photographic http://www.bdphotographic.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, yes, I'm aware of the hard-core scan-heads that are rolling their > eyes at this post. :) Oh, I used to be one of them before I bought my first DSLR. I suppose autosuggestion is what the shrinks call it. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Merely haven't done any colour film scanning since I got my DS, almost a > year ago. Now, I've had to find I've lost about three years' worth of > film scans and I'm starting all over again. > > Seems I had almost forgotten what a drag this is. How can it be that a > 700 euro dedicated film scanner and a computer that performance-wise > would have been the pride and joy of every met service, just a few years > ago, aren't able to produce a remotely correct colour balance while > every cheapo digicam can? > > Still have to see the first colour picture from my DS come out only half > (make that a tenth, actually) as bad as what I'm getting from a > computer/scanner system that has cost several times the price of the DS. > > Ralf > > *) Minolta 5400 > **) Mac Dual G5 > Getting good results from film scans requires a lot of work. Colour balance from reality is much easier to do than from a neg. And it doesn't help that the Minolta software isn't exactly great. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR
From my perspective, scanning is no joy. I used to have the scanner you mention (it broke, so Sony paid me for it instead of repairing it). Dust, film flatness, color, focusing problems all take a lot of time to figure out, then you through different films at it - oh, brother. Now I'm about ready to get a Nikon to replace the Minolta, and, although I'm using Hamrick Vuescan, I'm not looking forward to the time required to get good scans. Frankly, I'm doing this to get older images into digital format to share with friends and family. I don't need fine-art quality, but clean, color-balanced scans that accurately represent the original image with a minimum of fuss would be nice. Anybody know of a decent service for this? And, yes, I'm aware of the hard-core scan-heads that are rolling their eyes at this post. :) Tim Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Merely haven't done any colour film scanning since I got my DS, almost a > year ago. Now, I've had to find I've lost about three years' worth of > film scans and I'm starting all over again. > > Seems I had almost forgotten what a drag this is. How can it be that a > 700 euro dedicated film scanner and a computer that performance-wise > would have been the pride and joy of every met service, just a few years > ago, aren't able to produce a remotely correct colour balance while > every cheapo digicam can? > > Still have to see the first colour picture from my DS come out only half > (make that a tenth, actually) as bad as what I'm getting from a > computer/scanner system that has cost several times the price of the DS. > > Ralf > > *) Minolta 5400 > **) Mac Dual G5 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
