UV is dangerous through breaking chemical bonds directly; IR
is dangerous through cooking (breaking chemical bonds by
heating as in a grill or a toaster). The sun's radiant
energy has lots and lots of both. Your retinal heat
receptors (if any) won't be quick enough to prevent damage
if you put a
I got into a long discussion with Kodak about this a couple years back
when they first introduced their dye sub photographic copy centers into
stores, because I was noticing people tossing old photos after they made
a cleaned up, larger version on the Kodak machine.
I suggested, at that time, tha
NO, sorry, I too have no direct experience with this model.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "John C. Jernigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Art, Rob, et al,
>> Have you, or any others, any experience with the Olympus P-400 dye sub?
>> The samples I've seen are superb and can print (almost ) 8
> Most glasses absorb UV much more strongly than IR. Most of
> the materials used for sun viewing and photography (eclipse
> goggles) have a (log10) density of 5-8 for UV and visible,
> and less than 5 for IR.
>
> The worst of the lot is fogged colour negative film, which
> is fine in the UV & v
> Infra-red is on the other end of the light spectrum and is of very low
> energy per photon compared even to light. It is manifested to us as heat.
> How is this dangerous?
>
Have you ever taken a magnifying glass and used it to burn a leaf? Replace
the magnifying glass with the lens in your ey
> From a prctical point of view, I seriously doubt that glass absorbs a heck
> of lot of UV, certainly not over a long term.
>
Correct. Most glass readily transmits near UV quite well. For example, a
very common optical glass, BK7 transmits 80% of light at 340 nm and 5% at
300 nm. This is typi
In a message dated 2/5/2001 9:19:45 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital. I
> paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back. I took the CD back to the
> manger, who told me that it was a 50MB scan, compressed to 7MB and that a
I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital. I
paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back. I took the CD back to the
manger, who told me that it was a 50MB scan, compressed to 7MB and that all
the information would be there when I opened it up!!! I think by this he
mea
It this place you are dealing with doesn't understand basic things like
this, you probably should not be using them.
I would tell them to do the job again, or give you your money back, period.
Would you mind telling who the 'lab' is so we can avoid them?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EM
>From: "Cooke, Julie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising in digital.
>
>I explained that jpeg was a lossy compression, that information had been
>lost when converting to jpeg and it was no good to me. He looked at me as
>if
>I was mad and said that
> I think the manager is correct. This is only 7:1 compression, and I
> suspect that if you did a bit by bit subtraction of the jpeg and tiff
> files you'd find at most some errors in the least significant bit.
If they are doing ANY compression at all, they should tell you UP FRONT, no
question
If what you say abouut TIFF being the way to go, why then are the Majority of
Labs still scanning to the JPEG format? Would like an explantion, as I am
still amazed with digital imaging proceedures.
In a message dated 2/5/2001 10:00:42 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image at 72DPI? I do not
> believe that would be useful at all.
The way this is usually done is to put blown-up examples on the web
page along with graphics showing the bi
> There are so many variables [in] VueScan that I always
> seem to forget at least one of the crucial settings
I have this problem too. And new installs from Ed Hamrick's amazingly
frequent upgrades seem to overwrite some of my settings.
One thing that would help (listening, Ed?) would be for ne
Julie writes ...
> I've just had my 6x7 trannies scanned by a lab specialising
> in digital. I paid for a 50MB scan and got a 7MB jpeg back.
> ...
Ed is probably correct ... but I don't blame you, and I don't know
why your service refused or objected to your request.
I happen t
You may not see a difference but I only use jpeg when I need compression,
for the web. For manipulating I use bitmap or tiff, so I have as much
information as possible to start with. This is especially important when
using curves or levels in Photoshop to ensure smooth tones/avoid
posterisation.
Ed writes ...
> In a message dated 2/5/2001 9:19:45 AM EST,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I've just had my 6x7 trannies ...
> ... This is only 7:1 compression, and I suspect that if
> you did a bit by bit subtraction of the jpeg and tiff
> files you'd find at most some errors in the least
>
The lab are called Image Care in Kingston upon Thames, UK
(www.imagecare.com). If anyone can recommend any local labs in that area, it
would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Julie
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2001 14:55
To: [EMAIL PROT
WRGill writes ...
> If what you say about TIFF being the way to go,
> why then are the Majority of Labs still scanning
> to the JPEG format? Would like an explantion, ...
No one is arguing about the common practice of labs compressing into
the JPEG format. We are arguing that labs shoul
Could
it possibly be because it is easier and cheaper for them to output to in
terms of storage and transportability as well as because everyone seems to
assume that everyone wants their scans for use on the Web and do not really know
about or concern themselves with such matters as quality
Austin writes ...
> ...
>
> How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image
> at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all.
The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but
the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had
be defined at 300ppi. Julie only n
In a message dated 2/5/2001 10:51:27 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The only question which remains is if the service's JPEG compression
> also smoothed the data before compression.
The way to test this is to start with a tiff file from a well-focused
scanner (assuming a 24-bit tiff file i
Richard Wolfson writes ...
> One thing that would help (listening, Ed?) would be
> for new installs to respect my settings from
> previous versions -- e.g., color space (I like
> Adobe RGB, new installs reset to SRGB) ...
Ed's installation may have a reason for over-writing the
"VUESCAN.
Richard,
You can do this easily by just saving your Vuescan.ini file. I do that in a
folder that I create called vuescan ini so that the folder just shows up
alphabetically below my main Vuescan folder(but not as a subfolder of it, so
I can easily delete the main folder, but not the ini folder).
> > How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image
> > at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all.
> The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but
> the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had
> be defined at 300ppi. Julie only needs to "re-define"
I have to say that I would not use jpeg for saving anything.if for any
reason you wish to modify the file at a later date you will have already
thrown away information.
There are a couple of sites worth a look
www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.htmw
www.luratech.com
However if you are satisfied with the result
I have gotten (minor) color shifts with JPEG's (level 10).
Jon
__
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Ed writes ...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The only question which remains is if the service's JPEG
> > compression also smoothed the data before compression.
>
> The way to test this is to start with a tiff file
> ...
> The comparison is then between the original
> tiff file and the jpeg f
I gotten excellent results from 6 to7 meg jpegs. But that wasn't by choice.
A client received scans of his catalog pages (for no charge) from the
printer and they were able to fit all 40 pages on one CD. My intended use
was for the web so even if there were compression defects it wouldn't have
I pick up the scan tomorrow, I should have both the original jpeg scan on it
and a 50MB bitmap file.
I will compare the two.
Julie
-Original Message-
From: shAf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2001 17:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning prob
> I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the
> web for us to see, that is just silly. The only way to make a 50M image
> reasonably viewable (say 800x600 @ 100DPI) on the web is to resample it. That
> renders it pretty much useless for any type of detailed imag
In a message dated 2/5/2001 11:45:48 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the
> web for us to see, that is just silly.
No, no no. The only thing that needed is to crop a small bit of
the image and show how there's no differ
In article <001e01c08bbd$d38fa460$617079c0@drt4>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Austin Franklin) wrote:
> > As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
> > have seen it quoted
> > that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels.
>
> It is quite simple to calculate, and, of course, depends on what
Thanks, learning new words also, re: posterisation, close but no cigar,
Special Renderings (Page 1 of 4) (Select the image or image title below to
see a higher resolution image) SR 01 VIC 6X9CM Twelve Apostles (Textured)
(28K) SR 02 NT 6X7CM The Olgas (Painted) (8K) SR 03 NT 6X4CM Ayers Rock sky
Sorry about all of this, just wanted a simple explanation, which I never
received.
W. R. Gill
Carmel, CA
Hi,
> > There are so many variables [in] VueScan that I always
> > seem to forget at least one of the crucial settings
>
>I have this problem too. And new installs from Ed Hamrick's amazingly
>frequent upgrades seem to overwrite some of my settings.
>
>One thing that would help (listening, Ed?) w
Paul--
Scanner scan red, green and blue at a certain bit depth. Some Nikon scanners
scan at 12 bits per channel. However, a lot of software can't handle more
than 8 bits per channel (8x3=24 bits). When they can handle more, they
usually require 16 bits per channel (16x3=48 bits). So the Nikon sca
On this tiff - jpeg discussion, I found it interesting to compare the tiff and jpeg
versions of the Photodisc Target, one 40MB and the other 4MB, both downloadable from
ftp://ftp.photodisc.com They are both in Adobe RGB colour space.
At 100% display, I don't remember finding any discernible dif
Jack writes ...
> ...
> Nikon scanner scans at 12 bits (12x3=36) and if you
> want the extra bit depth it stores at 16 bits (48 bits).
> So the file size increases by 100% (if it is a tif for
> example) while information increases by 50%. ...
I have to ask what you are calling "informati
In a message dated 2/5/2001 3:48:57 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So the Nikon scanner
> scans at 12 bits (12x3=36) and if you want the extra bit depth it stores at
> 16 bits (48 bits). So the file size increases by 100% (if it is a tif for
> example) while information increases by 50%.
Julie--
Do you have a high resolution scan in a TIF format? If you save it as a JPG
in Photoshop at the highest quality and open it up again (so you have two
images open in Photoshop, the original plus the image saved as a JPG), and
then do an apply image, applying the JPG image to the TIF image,
WRGill wrote:
> If what you say abouut TIFF being the way to go, why then
> are the Majority of Labs still scanning to the JPEG format?
> Would like an explantion, as I am still amazed with digital
> imaging proceedures.
My guess is a combination of ignorance and probably a desire to fit more
ima
>From: Jack Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>It is also a good way to show to the lab that
>yes, you do loose something at the highest quality setting.
It still seems to me that the main point is that this "digital" lab doesn't
even understand the basics of digital imaging if they don't know that J
I downloaded these previously and now compared them - looking specifically
at the leather bag in the middle and the violet background of the square to
it's right (at 300%) , I see better color saturation in the tiff and finer
color gradations in the tiff - the jpeg violet seems to convert into bla
What I meant was that it uses 16 bits to store 12 bits of information. So if
you start with a 2000x3000 resoluation image for 3 channels at 8 bits you
get 18MB. To go to 12 bit it seems that you would go to 27MB, a 50% increase
in size. But in fact you have to store the 12 bit image in a 16 bit fo
To supplement my last (recent) message I am enclosing samples from the
orange of the child's play blocks - both were cropped to 10X12 pixels, and
the jpeg was saved without (further) compression.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on 2/5/01 2:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Except that VueScan's dust removal works better than Digital ICE,
> VueScan's "Restore colors" works better than Digital ROC, and
> VueScan's Clean function works better than Digital GEM. I'm biased
> of course, and people sho
You could cut out a little piece of the original image and put it up for
examination. Cut the same piece out of the corresponding jpeg.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
I always save my previous .ini file and simply copy it into the new
directory. Has worked so far.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Monday, Fe
I take a slightly different approach. I rename the old vuescan directory to
something like vuescan661 (if it contains version 6.6.1) and then simply
install the new version. It automatically creates a new vuescan directory.
Then I copy the .ini file in vuescan661 to vuescan and I'm in business.
Th
Hi Julie,
I certainly empathize with your concerns. The unfortunate (and good)
thing about the JPEG compression method is the compression setting can
vary from making absolutely no difference in the recreated image
(basically lossless) to one that looks like it was shot with a web-cam.
Unfor
Shough, Dean wrote:
>> From a prctical point of view, I seriously doubt that glass absorbs a heck
>> of lot of UV, certainly not over a long term.
>>
>
>
> Correct. Most glass readily transmits near UV quite well. For example, a
> very common optical glass, BK7 transmits 80% of light at 34
I know there is no such thing as a typical image, but using your
software mentioned below, with a "typical image" at 7:1 compression
ratio, do you see any loss of color info, or detail? If so, who would
you define it in terms of loss of info?
Art
shAf wrote:
> I happen to have JPEG s
Ed,
Any problem with this or reason not to?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: VueScan suggestion
| I always save my previous .ini file and simply copy it into t
Tony, for us users of Vuescan on a Mac scanning for output to an Epson
Printer, would 1.8 be good gamma starting point? Vuescan defaults to 2.2,
I'm guessing because most users are on Windows.
STEPHENJENNINGS
P h o t o g r a p h e r
Cambridge, MA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To be more pr
Jack,
I tried this on a 50 MB tiff image. After following your instruction, the
histogram shows a single spike adjacent to the left border of the histogram
box directly above the black arrow. Adjusting the levels arrows doesn't do
anything. All the subtracted pixels are black. What am I doing wro
Stephen writes ...
> Tony, for us users of Vuescan on a Mac scanning for output to an
Epson
> Printer, would 1.8 be good gamma starting point? Vuescan defaults
to 2.2,
> I'm guessing because most users are on Windows.
> ...
A 2.2 gamma space has only two things going for it (... 3 if you
cr
57 matches
Mail list logo
