RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

> I only re-size in PS (no interpolation, I just let the DPI fall where ever > it falls), then (in custom) set the print driver to micro-weave, not high > speed, usually to the highest resolution etc. Put paper in printer, hit > "print" button ;-) Thanks, Austin. I wasn't aware of the Leafscan

filmscanners: workflow

Following on from Tony's method here's mine - under a new topic as it has nothing to do with Polaroid 120s. I don't think I'm too good at the actual image processing side so I'm going to brush over a lot of that and describe the overall workflow. I am aiming to have scans of anything vaguely usef

RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

Ed, > If I were only buying one film scanner, I'd buy the CoolScan IV (LS-40). > It's a really terrific scanner. I will given this serious consideration. I'd narrowed the choice down to the LS 4000 or SS 120 (I know, these are in different leagues), and was leaning toward the latter (since I _a

Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:19:31 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner > doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what > they actually capture. You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable

Re: filmscanners: films for scanning?

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:11:16 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I don't > think anyone makes a housing for my Pentax) Ewa Marina make 'plastic bag' type housings which will fit almost anything , good for down to 15m ISTR. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online

Re: filmscanners: Skin tones

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:14:50 Mikael Risedal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There are something else with VueScan just now if I compare VueScan to > NikonScan and Silverfast. Little bit flat, doll and color less. Yes, I see low saturation too with VS+SS4000. Doesn't bother me personally as I alw

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical > Darkroom's? I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. It's just different, and different enough to be unable to say which is objectivel

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:41:32 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films > 160ASA and under don't resolve to grain at 5080. It REALLY depends on > what > film, exposure and development. > > If 4000 were the limit,

Re: filmscanners: leveling scanners

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:31:34 +1000 Robert Q Groom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Alas, the red and cyan colour fringing around high contrast edges > didn't change > at all. :-( This is fairly characteristic of all filmscanners, to a degree at least. Have a close look at some of the native reso

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

In a message dated 6/18/2001 6:59:21 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Are you suggesting that the LS-40 represents better value (less resolution > and D-Max, but also less expensive), or that the differences in > resolution/D-Max are so small as to be insignificant, or that this scanner > h

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

Tony wrote: >My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm images >neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route >unless unusually large viewing distances are involved, and I most often >print at A4. I like 'sharp' but don't much like grain in most im

Re: filmscanners: leveling scanners

Robert wrote: >>the red and cyan colour fringing around high contrast edges >>didn't change at all. Tony answered: >This is fairly characteristic of all filmscanners, to a degree at least. >Have a close look at some of the native resolution samples for different >scanners at my site. I don't bel

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> This is a very small snippet of a scan taken with my Minolta Scan > Dual Which, according to Minolta, has an optical resolution of 2,438... > The maximum resolved pattern is group 5, > element 5 which has a resolution of 50.8 lpm = 1,290 line pairs per inch. That comes out to 2545 DPI I

RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

At 05:55 AM 6/18/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote: >> I only re-size in PS (no interpolation, I just let the DPI fall where ever >> it falls), then (in custom) set the print driver to micro-weave, not high >> speed, usually to the highest resolution etc. Put paper in printer, hit >> "print" button ;

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> > OK, I *know* what happens when a very good camera lens does this > > test--the > > end of the scale turns to mush. Can anyone say what happens when > > a CCD does > > this? My guess would be "noise," but I frankly don't know and I've never > > seen it done. Any comments? I'm reaching. > It lo

Re: OT:Re: filmscanners: brief density math lesson...

Alan asks: > "mnemonic" ? > > Can't remember what that means. ISTR I could even spell it > on demand, a long time ago. Well, off the top of my head, a mnemonic is a device intended to aid memory recall by substituting one word or phrase for another. The danger, obviously, being that sometimes yo

Re: filmscanners: films for scanning?

OTOH, test it out thoroughly in your basthtub first. A Pentax is not particularly fond of even very small amounts of sea-water, and this I know personally! :-) Best regards--LRA >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanner

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

I would defer to Tony. When I said "Different," I didn't mean to imply that "Different" is either better or worse, because it's not. It is merely "Not Exactly the Same." I have gotten far better pictures from scanning underexposed Tri-X than I got in a conventional darkroom. By the same token,

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> > I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner > > doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what > > they actually capture. > > You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable and varies empirically > according to subject contrasts, luminance an

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

Based on http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm ( if done accurately) SS4000 is overall "better" than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is not as "good" as his more expensive brother (this is easy to see!) the Polaroid is a clear winner. With no real knowledge about CanoScan FS4000US a

RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

> Thanks, Austin. I wasn't aware of the Leafscan 45 till you mentioned it > (digital imaging is a (perplexing) new world to me). Nice that it works > with multiple formats. And that it scans B&W with a single ND filter, instead of doing conversions from RGB like every other scanner does (that

Re: filmscanners: Skin tones

Following Ed's advice I rescanned an image in Vuescan using "infrared clean" & restore colors" The result compared to Nikonscan 3.1 can be seen at http://www.littlebarn.com/test/index.htm After autolevel and curve correction in Photoshop I get an image from Vuescan that is better than Nikon Scan.

RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

> And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film, > he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour > or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in > a hurry. That's not entirely true. It depends on the exposure time, and how new the bulb is. If you set exp

Re: filmscanners: leveling scanners

This is just a note of thanks to all those who helped me answer, in the negative, the question of whether scanners need to be level. From the responses both on this list and on the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> list, it seems to be a non-issue. Sam

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)

Good point Walter. Perhaps I have been aiming too high in wishing to keep 4000dpi TIF's of all my images on CD. Perhaps a 4000dpi JPEG will suffice. It would sure save a lot of storage space (AKA $$$). Thanks for your thoughts. - Original Message - From: Walter Bushell <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can be obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as

Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 4,000ppi doesn't leave me with any grief for whatever it misses - but nor > did 2,700. However I value more the smoother tonality of 4000ppi than the > minor increase in sharpness of fine detail. I get considerably smoother tonality with the Agfa T-2500 than

Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

I would venture to suggest that a 3-minute exposure using the same exposure settings but with today's equipment will result in the same detail. Maris - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:54 AM Subject: RE: film

Re: filmscanners: Is my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 faulty?

Robert, > I wonder if you would mind taking a look at the > images I've posted on this web page... > > > > and then letting me know whether your conclusion > is the same as mine. A rather obvious question but have you tried scanning the same slid

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue (skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the scanning process. If we scan B&W film, we should (theoretically) have the

Fw: filmscanners: mechanical adjustment on nikon ls-2000

hi again, since i had no luck getting any help on this or the digitalsilver list, does anyone at least know where i could look for an answer? is there the equivalent of the old nikon tech forum somewhere? thanks in advance - Original Message - From: "Jules" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMA

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote: > I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the > issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can be > obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems > still unresolve

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Alessandro Pardi wrote: > Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has > often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue > (skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the > scanning process.

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> I was thinking color images. Gotta remember > that Austin (more often than not) is scanning > BW negatives. Yes, you are right, I am talking B&W. I really should have said that, but we were talking about converting RGB scans to B&W, so I assumed the source WAS a B&W negative... > There is a

filmscanners: VueScan questions

Hi I have few doubts in VueScan please clear them Please let me know the settings to be made in "Color | Negative Brand" & "Color | Negative Type" for Fuji Superia 200/400, Kodak Max 400, Kodak Gold 400. In VueScan, "Color | Negative Type" has things like "200 Gen 4"; What does "Gen 4" stand f

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to a Nikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to be sharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention GEM and ROC. In reality Rick's sample do show that Nikon generally has the best shadow

filmscanners: Underwater pictures was Re: filmscanners: films for scanning?

Tony wrote: > Ewa Marina make 'plastic bag' type housings which > will fit almost anything, good for down to 15m ISTR. I've looked at getting one of these to try with my Olympus compact camera, but it's likely to work well at anything more than a metre or two because of the water pressure. If an

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

Lynn wrote: > The old, slower lenses show their "stuff," and the smaller format > tends to drop some of the detail. This leads me to think that the > lensatics and medium of the target picture is *still* more > important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is > competent in the first pla

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

At 06:00 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote: >Huh? How do they get even illumination, muchless correct wavelength light, >from LEDs as the light source? That wouldn't be my first choice I don't >believe, for a light source, or for filtering the light! I don't know, and I'm not sure I care. It w

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in > sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.) I actually used that technique in a scanner I worked on more than 20 years ago! I don't believe I'd call sheet-fed paper scanners high quality film scanners though ;-)

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

I am a very happy LS-30 Nikon owner, and get great results with NS 3.1 and Vuescan with negatives that I shoot. If I was to upgrade anytime soon, it would certainly be to the Nikon 4000, I would point new users to a used LS-30 or a Coolscan IV, unless they could splurge for a 4000. The only drawba

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum scanners or do not own scanners at all. I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 price range. It is unfortunate.

Re: Fw: filmscanners: mechanical adjustment on nikon ls-2000

Jules, I have always received an answer from Nikon at Nikon - Digital Imaging <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not usually the answer I wanted, but they do answer and quite promptly I would guess their answer in this case (send it back for repair), so I am afraid I have not been much help again Good l

filmscanners: GEM

  I was considering trading up from my Artixscan 4000 (SS4000 clone) to aNikon because I'm sick of removing dust specks, the Nikon was said to besharper with better shadow performance and faster, not to mention GEM andROC.   Sorry, but for those without this tool what is GE

RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

At 02:29 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote: [rafe b:] >> And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film, >> he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour >> or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in >> a hurry. [Austin:] >That's not entirely true. It dep

Re: filmscanners: Underwater pictures

I just need to save up for that dedicated underwater camera. :)Try some of the older used Nikonos camera just to get your feet wet. You can change lense, put on macros and change shutter speeds and aperatures allowing the use of slower film and finer grain.   Norman Quinn

RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...

> [rafe b:] > >> And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film, > >> he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour > >> or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in > >> a hurry. > > [Austin:] > >That's not entirely true. It depends on the exposure time,

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway down the page at this site: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear. Is this the effect of greate

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks sc anner)

At 10:27 AM 6/19/01 +1000, Rob wrote: >I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount >lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken >with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than >photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the >autof

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

Peter wrote: > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides > though. I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction levels because o

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost. I like the LED lighting source and the dynamic range. My read on low cost 35mm film scanners is that

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

Dan wrote: > To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon > image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the > Leafscan is clear. Must be something wrong with my monitor at work. The differences look very subtle to me. Someone else made a good point though - how long did the leafsca

RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> Someone else made a good point though - how long did the > leafscan take to produce the scan compare to the Nikon? How long > from holding > the piece of film to having the TIFF file on the computer? The scan time for most any scanner is reasonably deterministic. It is the (exposure time * th

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

Rob Geraghty wrote: > Peter wrote: > > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, > > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides > > though. > > I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on > colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression

Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway > down the page at this site: > > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > > To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed > through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear. > > Is this the e

Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

From: Dan Honemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway > down the page at this site: > > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > > To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed > through a veil of haze, while

filmscanners: SS4000: calibrate and profile?

I've added a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 to my desktop (w/o trying to level it 8). And installed both Polaroid's PolaColor Insight Pro (4.5) software and LaserSoft Imaging's Silverfast 5 software. Both were bundled. Silverfast 5 includes an IT-8 calibration module, which includes profiling. A C-R

Re: filmscanners: GEM

They are products made by Applied Science Fiction in addition to Digital ICE, which removes the dust and scratches. Their website at http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/ICE3/overview.shtml describes both products. Maris - Original Message - From: Norman Quinn To: [EMAIL PROTE

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)

> The > Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail. And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo? I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor! Actual pixel clips are certainly usable for some criteria.

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

>Excellent output can be >obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems >still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as >great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the >one with greatest longevity. That's

Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

I couldn't be happier with my SS4000 and I can't imagine that any of the other scanners in the same price range as competition for the SS4000 output ( from slides at least ). I've been using mine for over a year with absolutely no problems. It put me in the business of selling fine art prints whic