Just a note on LZW compressed image portability - I have run into one
instance where an LZW compressed image was not portable - when exporting a
48-bit compressed TIFF from Vuescan to Corel PhotoPaint 9 it opens but the
image is unrecognizable. If exported uncompressed there is no problem, and
on
This is what I thought, too, but before venturing to say so, I actually
performed an experiment, repeatedly saving the JPG file at the same
compression factor. It got smaller by about 2% each time I saved it. It is
probably honing in on some optimized compression at that level of quality.
Visual i
Richard writes ...
> Yes it is large. It will encompass Ekta Space (almost), which is the
> definition of E6 Ektachrome media, and thus E6 gamut.
I'm posting th results of my little test regarding the capacity of
Vuescan's gamut, "device RGB" (... whatever it is ...)
First ... some prel
Hi Rob,
The original question was asked about repeatedly opening and saving as a jpeg.
>larry wrote:
> > What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving
> > the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time
> > there would be some generational loss.
>
>Rob wrote: This is o
This is the main reason I am considering selling my Sprintscan 4000 and
buying a Nikon 4000ED. The ability to drop a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film
in and walk away.
Does anybody have any experience yet? That's literally the only reason I
want to make the switch. I like my Sprintscan a lot.
Tom
>Each time there would be some generational loss.
Not necessarily true. If you open and close ( or resave) the compressed file
without changing the compression from one quality level to another in the
case of .jog or without resampling the image prior to closing or resaving
the file, there will b
Only if you change the quality when resaving the .jpg file or if you
resample the file in any way prior to resaving the .jpg file even at the
same quality level. With .tif files, you will lose information only if you
resample the file after opening it and before resaving it.
-Original Messag
Richard wrote:
>And, you can't open a file into "photoCD space", You cannot load any
>of the profiles mentioned above as a working "space". If Ed is "doing
>this" - somehow - he is not doing this without Kodak's permission,
>unless he is licensed and has obtained proprietary authoring
>softwar
Bob wrote:
>I think what you may have here derives in part from the sky and other nominally
>bright parts of images on negatives being the darkest -- most dense --
in
>the film. So sky in negs can be more difficult and show grain and/or noise
>much like dark shadow areas of slides are the difficu
larry wrote:
> What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving
> the same image in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time
> there would be some generational loss.
This is only true of lossy compressed formats like jpeg and PCD.
> Store in an uncompressed native format to your grap
>
> When you say "all the PCD profiles", wouldn't Ed simply be using the
>most appropriate one. And, wouldn't this one offer a standard model
>for mathematically converting to & from???
They are all different:
pcd4050e.pf for E6
pcd4050k.pf for K-14
pcdcnycc.pf for color negative
pcdekycc.
What would be the point of storing and reopening and saving the same image
in a compressed format repeatedly. Each time there would be some
generational loss. Store in an uncompressed native format to your graphics
program. If you open a jpeg in Photoshop it automatically takes on the
characte
I guess you will have to ask him exactly what he is using.
The discussion was about PhotoCD embedded profiles. Not standard
spaces, such as AdobeRGB. The "Transforms" you can download from
Kodak - ASFICT are profiles, used to open files formatted in PhotoCD
format. For opening files only. But
>I think there may be an issue here with what is "apparent grain" and what
>is "real grain" and what is "grain aliasing". In any case, I have yet to
>find a neg film which *doesn't* show unacceptable amounts of "grain" in
>things like blue sky, while pretty much *every* slide film gives reasonabl
Did any one knows whether is there any informations/details loses when
store in compressed JPG format in maximum quality 10 and while you keep
opening and saving the same file many times?
And how about the raw file TIFF?
Thanks.
HT Tin
Richard wrote:
>There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open
>PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to
>PhotoCD foramt.
Graphic Workshop Profesional does.
> If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news
> to me.
They released a toolki
Having just experimented with print resolutions using a very sharp
Kodachrome 25 with lots of fine detail, I would agree with Bob's figures.
I found that I could push the print resolution down to 140 dpi before I
began to detect a noticeable difference in the prints when viewed at about
30cm (
Graphics Workshop Professional can write the Kodak PhotoCD format, as I
previously posted.
From the FAQ page on the web site
http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwsproqa.html
Q: Graphic Workshop Professional can write PCD files. Does this mean it can
create complete Kodak PhotoCDs?
A: Sadly,
There are a whole host of imaging programs which can handle or open
PhotoCD format, including Photoshop. None, that I know can write to
PhotoCD foramt. If Kodak has released PhotoCD to the public, its news
to me.
I think what you are trying to tell me is that I can cut my own Photo
CDs. Right
>8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut profiles, in
>either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. The are all complex. The only thing
>you can say is that they universally fit within Kodak ProPhotoRGB
>space. I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - -
>unless for PR reaso
This is a "rant," so delete now if you've heard it before. ;-)
I've just reverted to PS-5.0-LE--partly because a bigger PS was giving me
problems, and partly to see "What are the Peasants, Doing, Tonight?" (bad
joke, I admit--it needs the music). :-)
Someone, a few months ago said PS-LE was a P.
Richard writes ...
> There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD
> "space", and VS using PhotoCD "space".
>
> 1. You will note that you cannot do a profile
> conversion (profile to profile) in Photoshop ...
>
> 2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE
> proprietary, ...
>
> 3. I
Richard wrote:
>The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson
>printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be.
It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers
on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben
list. It's
Tony wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty
>> much every other neg film I've tried.
> Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one
> time, and had no problems wi
Lynn wrote:
>For people merely documenting a roll of film or a box of slides (which
>presupposes not being *super-critical* of the output other than that the
>black/white points are fairly stable), using a lower scan resolution (1350
>to 300, in reverse order) is much faster.
Especially with APS
Larry wrote:
>This was discussed about a year ago.
>There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can convert
>to the proprietary PhotoCD format:
>http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html
And it works, too! However, bear in mind that PCD is NOT a lossless format
like TIFF.
Tony wrote:
>Printing at A3 is a *lot* of enlargement for 35mm, by whatever route.
For "professional" resolution images, I agree. But I have 50x70cm poster
prints at home which I'm quite happy with. It all depends - as you mention
- on your expectations.
>Not saying you are, or haven't the ex
This was discussed about a year ago.
There is a program called Graphic Workshop Professional that can convert to
the proprietary PhotoCD format:
http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html
Larry
>There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS using
>PhotoCD "space".
There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS
using PhotoCD "space".
1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile to
profile) in Photoshop to a PhotoCD (space) profile, of which I have
about 8 of them in my ColorSync folder.
2. PhotoCD format - - a
Jon wrote:
>Jim, I noticed I get "better looking" results scanning my Kodak Supra
400 with Generic Neg setting. Info posted on another thread indicates
that Vuescan attempts to make all neg films "accurate" to a Kodak
target, which seems to me would make all different types of neg film
look alike
Jeanne,
Thanks for the response. It turns out the scanner was shipped from Microtek
with the SCSI ID set to 9. When it was changed to a normal 1 through 6 it
worked fine. I think 9 is a test position.
David
-Original Message-
From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thur
Quite sojust carring out a "quality of service" check that's all.
Richard Corbett
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
> On Thu, 29
Austin's pretty much right, here, but I haven't seen much of the degradation
he talks about in re-sampling, although I know it *has* to exist, given the
nature of the beast.
I would add that you should choose an optimum file-size based both on the
ultimate end use and the finished size of the out
On 29 Mar 2001, Richard Starr wrote:
> --- You wrote:
> Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me.
> --- end of quote ---
> Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if
> it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required?
I have used the
Jon - Thanks
It's one more thing I'll try... This stuff has about *a million* degrees of freedom,
and in the end, I'm still working with something that's subjective. I'm afraid I may
have been a bit too lazy so far. It's not going to work though - the canned solution
isn't going to satisfy m
- Original Message -
From: Richard Starr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:27 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi
> The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson
> printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be.
>
> My hab
Julie wrote:
>From the following article, grain aliasing will be worse on a lower
resolution scanner.
>http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
That seems to be true from my experience--either worse or not much affected.
Be that as it may, when *dealing* with it, PS's Despeckle filter does a mu
Richard wrote:
> Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a
Mac if it isn't supplied with Mac software? Would Vuescan be required?
Vuescan should work. Also call Acer Customer Service and ask if a Mac driver
is available. (1-800-452-2237 in the US--don't be surpri
< Since this post is mostly "FYI" coupled with a short "editorial," feel
free to delete at any time. ;-) >
A news item of passing interest appears in March 2001 "Art in America" (last
page).
It seems that pop artist Barbara Kruger is being sued for copyright
infringement by German photographer T
Here are some conclusions regarding Nikon ED 4000. and 3 weeks try out.
Sharpness, resolution:
There is a problem with the film holders and flatness of the film. No film
are exactly flat, and ED 4000 overall sharpness are not good because of
curved film.. If the auto focus or manual focus ar
Hi all: I have found that I get a better transition from scan to PS to print
using Vuescan, PS and Hammermill Jet Print Ultra Glossy and Epson's Matte
papers. Hammermill's glossy is a bit heavier than Epsons. I do not know if this
applies to those out of the US.
Gordon
Michael Moore wrote:
>
Jim, I noticed I get "better looking" results scanning my Kodak Supra
400 with Generic Neg setting. Info posted on another thread indicates
that Vuescan attempts to make all neg films "accurate" to a Kodak
target, which seems to me would make all different types of neg film
look alike. So, you mig
Tony writes ...
> The raw scan is in an unspecified device space,
> scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the
> production of the Crop file, munges that against
> his characterisation and the result is a scan
> with altered data values within Vuescan's working
> space (which I previously s
That's my understanding, too. But I note that in the Help files the 2720S
is listed but the 2740S is not - why is that? There was a message on the
comp.periphs.scanners group that the 2740S was not supported - I have no
information as to the reliability of the sender of that message.
Maris
---
The general consensus is printing in the range of 240-360dpi, and it will
depend on the paper - for a good explanation of why see
http://www.scantips.com/
The best thing to do is to experiment on *your* printer and find the optimal
dpi for each type of paper you generally use. I did that for my
> The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson
> printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be.
>
> My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then
> move it to a
> default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for
> sizing. I save
This last msg recalls something from my WWII childhood: "Is this trip really
necessary?"
No offense intended, and best regards--LRA
>Did you check his web page.
>> Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
---
FREE! The World
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:39:18 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I meant it only in the context of what you seemed to imply ... VS
> offering only trismuthus matrix tranformations. It is apparently something
> quite rigorous to impliment and tranform 3-dimensional LUT-type device
> prof
Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my
Epson 740
Mike M.
Derek Clarke wrote:
> In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is
> available on their various national web sites.
>
> But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper
>From the following article, grain aliasing will be worse on a lower
resolution scanner.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
Julie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: films
This why I use the Fuji emulsions... REALA in 35mm and NPS/NPL in 4x5... I shoot
in mixed light (daylight/tungsten/flourescent) with NO FILTERS and get great
results... I've been the gels/flourescent filters/this and that route... that's
the problem with trannies on interiors...
Mike M.
Tony Sle
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well. But
> apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S.
>From discussion here, the 2740 is the exact same scanner as
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:26:12 +0100 Dicky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Which version of Unix would that be then.
I am trying to suppress OT threads, as you and others have asked...
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
comparisons
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:11 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> FYI last night I tried my first A3 (not A3+) print from a 2700dpi scan.
> The image was scanned from 100ASA print film with a Nikon LS30. The result
> is good, but perhaps not as sharp as I'd like - but for a real tes
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:02:24 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rather than start another thread which could be viewed
> as of little connection with actual scanning, please
> respond off the list
Thankyou Rob. You said it for me.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - O
--Original Message--
From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Film Scanners News Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 29, 2001 8:01:20 AM GMT
Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
>Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
>Sincerely.
>Ezio
It's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or
Rob wrote:
>... most people (if not everyone) scans a source file at 2700dpi (or
whatever their maximum optical scanner resolution is) and change the output
dpi later in Photoshop or whatever editor they use.
For people merely documenting a roll of film or a box of slides (which
presupposes not
--- You wrote:
Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me.
--- end of quote ---
Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if
it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required?
Rich
Derek wrote:
>I've just built my current most powerful box with a RAID 10 array of four
30 Gig drives , giving 60 Gig of reliable storage for £450 which is
comparable to the cost of just one smaller SCSI disc.
Whoosh! Now *there's* a Power User! How does it work, Derek? ("he said,
drooling!" :-)
The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson
printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be.
My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a
default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for
sizing. I save the 'print'
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:20:11 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> ... Tony seems to be
> under the impression, for those scanners which have been chracterized,
> Vuescan will transform the scanned RGB data into "device RGB".
The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, scanner RGB. Ed's
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much
> every other neg film I've tried.
Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one time, and
had no problems with grain aliasing
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:01:20 +0200 Ezio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's another address in the help file, ISTR.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
Did you check his web page.
Dale
- Original Message -
From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Film Scanners News Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:01 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
> Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
>
> Si
Yuri,
Did you report the problem to Ed.
Dale
> 7.0.6 causes my SCSI HP Photosmart scanner to change from "negative"
> to "print" mode halfway through a scan with disastrous results for the
> last frame on the negative strip as it gets eaten by the scanner.
>
> Went back to 7.0 and the scann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Ezio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Film Scanners News Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:01 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Ed e-mail ?
> Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
>
> Sincerely.
>
> Ez
"shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob writes ...
> > Er, doesn't PS 5.5 allow you to say what profile the
> > image is coming from when the image is untagged?
> Yes ... but it seems to me that list of profiles is particular to
> working spaces, excluding device profiles ... or maybe I'm wron
"Jim Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been scanning into sRGB. I'll be using these scans on the web
> ultimately so I assumed that was the way to go. I also leave the scanner
> on all the time so the warmup thing is not an issue.
What resolution will you be using on the net? If it's no
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote:
[re get dpi from in vuescan]
>Investigate it - it's what you want. From the Help file:
Actually the only reason it may be necessary is that one of the changes in
Paintshop Pro 7 is that it (unlike 6) doesn't seem to be able to change the
dpi without resampling. :-7 O
Please, I need Ed's personal e-mail to report a bug in Vuescan.
Sincerely.
Ezio
Investigate it - it's what you want. From the
Help file:
"Prefs tab
Get dpi from/Dpi or width These options
let you specify how to compute the dots per inch (dpi) of the cropped
images. The dpi can be the same as the scanned image, can be
explicitly set, or can be computed so that t
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Berk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Now, I was reading a bulletin board at zdnet last night where people
> did nothing to bash MS left and right, and sing the praises of Unix. I
know
Which version of Unix would that be then.
Richard Corbett
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:04:01 +0100 Michael Wilkinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you are working quickly its almost impossible to use gels unless
> you've used the location before.
Specially if it's flourescents ;). However, then it's difficult to see the v/f
image.
> The drawback to any
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:26:11 -0500 Rick Berk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Jim please tell me you're kidding. ME was solid out of the box?
Enough, please. This is well off-topic. And it will run and run if not
nailed...
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhib
74 matches
Mail list logo
