Rob Wrote:
>AFAIK Vuescan's film type settings are limited by the profiles released
>for PhotoCD. So if there's no PhotoCD profile for Superia, there's none
>in Vuescan. The profile for Reala should be very close - they use the same
>emulsion technology.
Thanks. Yes, the Reala 100(Japan) gives
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:11:27 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> DMax is of no value what so ever unless there is a DMin associated with
> it
> (and vice versa).
Hmm, I don't want to sound like a tiresome pedant who gets all worked up
over precise use of language, but (to be t
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: 17 July 2001 23:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
Tony,
What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2 rated
400 -
It should have read, "and we like to incorporate it into our machines."
And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in
areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous
range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming
makes assumption
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:40:02 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Nikon is having to deal with me. I own a lot of their "stuff", and it
> has and does continue to breakdown (after it was serviced by them, BTW).
Ah, now I understand : legitimate user feedback, therefore :)
Regard
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth.
So did that:) So did this:)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
At 09:37 PM 7/17/01 -0700, Art wrote:
>>From my read on this,
I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
on this topic, Art. I can browse the internet as
well as the next Tom, Dick or Harry, and don't need
your help to form my opinions on such matters.
Have you owned a Nikon scanner?
I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight
under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went
under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't
really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots.
RE: the pink cast on pr
>> They can't really think I wanted that, can they?
>They may not have a choice. I'd guess that most minilabs would only have
>colour paper, and it's just not possible to get true greyscale on colour
>paper.
Well, we'll see. I finally got hold of a phone number for the Kodak lab.
After I call t
My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit
skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wife were
not ha
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> > this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> > A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any
> It should have read, "and we like to incorporate it into our machines."
>
> And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in
> areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous
> range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming
> makes
Hi!
> My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
> but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
> banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit
> skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wif
Julian wrote:
>...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on
>its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no film, nothing
>in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector.
IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*
Jeff..
You might try the "BULBMAN" @ 1-800-648-1163..I've had excellent luck with
them in the past on other types of bulb replacements..
Eddie Wiseman
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Weir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: filmsca
"Steven Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What speed do you rate your T400CN ?
I've been rating mine at EI250. The lack of grain is astounding.
Rob
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there
a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp
is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on
both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circ
> I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement
> bulb/tube.
I would be curious what the replacement cost is, if you would be so kind to
post it...
I can and will!
Lawrence
>
> Could You publish any image on your site with visible banding? I'm very
> curious how it looks like.
>
> --
> Marcin M. Nagraba
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> --
>
> Znudzilo Ci sie logo w komorce?
> Wgraj nowe [ http://komorki.onet.pl/dodatki.html ]
>
> >...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on
> >its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no
> film, nothing
> >in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector.
>
> IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*), it
> DMax *does* have a particular meaning in photography and it ain't
> 'dynamic range'. It is an absolute value of opacity - a densitometric
> measurement relative only to the illuminant intensity unimpeded by film.
Yes, film and paper can be measured by a calibrated densitometer, but what
you ar
Norman wrote:
>>I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight
>under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went
>under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't
>really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots.
I o
Hi, Tony--
Turns out we were both trying to throw water on a "grass fire," so to speak.
I've made apologies all round, and apologize to you, as well. :-)
Best regards--Lynn Allen
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanne
Here's an example of the banding. http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm It
is EXACTLY the same as my previous 8000 had done.
Lawrence
> > **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> > this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> > A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
>
Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to
f
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:37:35 +0100 Steven Chambers
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2
> rated
> 400 -> 50 ASA.
ISO400 works well for me, although I'll increase it a bit if shadow detail
is the priority.
I don't much like what h
> Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is
> internally only?
> And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC?
> Or that the
> system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC?
That's an interesting issue. A design can use a 12 bit ADC, and take
mu
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: film
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It's not my job to refute your unfounded
> statements. You made the statement; YOU
> provide the facts to back them up.
Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some
'previous' :-
(i)the unfortu
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:53:03 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
> but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
> banding galore.
Do you think this is just showing banding which
Tony,
I think it is happening everywhere but is most obvious in the blue regions.
Lawrence
>
> Do you think this is just showing banding which is happening
> generally but
> hard to see, or is it just in this area?
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
It's
really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have
your SS120?
Lawrence
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
You should check your individual channels in PS (make sure you have them set
to display in grayscale in the preferences). It would be interesting to see
if the banding is isolated on one channel. If it is isolated in the blue
channel, you might be able to gaussian blur that one channel slightly, a
I have checked and it is mostly in the blue channel. I notified tech
support of this but they continue to pretend that my problems are not
widespread. Bullsh*t...
Lawrence
>
> You should check your individual channels in PS (make sure you
> have them set
> to display in grayscale in the prefere
Lynn,
Actually we probably both had the same problem - if you don't specify with
the lab their machine will automatically print each exposure as close to the
'right' print they can. I've taken to stipulating that they use no
compensation on any prints. When I got my most recent camera (Nikon N80)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
> Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
> scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
> value.
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's "MF" mean?
--
Terry Carroll | "Denied."
Santa Clara, CA | Baltimor
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Actually, I sent it back. Mainly because I
decided that Digital ICE was well worth it for me. The SS120 did not have
any banding like that but I felt it was also not quite as sharp as the
Nikon.
Paul Wilson
-Original
Mess
Here's archive the url
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Norman Unsworth
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a default scan (ROC/GEM
off) so that the black point
I bought my first scanner, the Primefilm 1800, cos it is cheap (£120). And
the LS40 because it is the cheapest with ICE-cubed (I'm now using all 3
parts of it, and I'm doing almost no editing in PS, except for cropping and
basic exposure curves).
I've always thought of myself as relatively immun
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
> RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...It's really annoying.
> Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120?
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
>
> Paul Wilson
The ba
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
>
> > Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
> > scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
> > value.
>
> Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's "MF" mean?
On this list,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > It's not my job to refute your unfounded
> > statements. You made the statement; YOU
> > provide the facts to back them up.
>
> Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters,
Seems pretty slight to me - but I've already surmised that I am not in the
same league of perfectionism as everyone else round here (hey, I own an
LS40 - and my most expensive camera component ever (SLR body, lens, flash,
etc) is my Canon P&S).
What magnification are we looking at in the zoom? S
MF = Medium Format (120 roll film sizes, typically)
Stan
===
Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
> Seems pretty slight to me -
Perhaps but it shows up in prints. As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they
need to be perfect.
>
> What magnification are we looking at in the zoom?
About 66%
> Somebody was talking
> about making the 8000 slow down to use only one row of CCD sensors at a
> tim
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
> May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
> Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
>
> Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
> Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doin
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I'm not sure when I'll be receiving my new 8000. It's on backorder and I got a price of $2800, so I'm willing to wait. However, I'll be trying the same slides that caused banding in the first place and I'll report as soon as I ca
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
> Kerry Thompson wrote
>
>
>>I recently installed a LS-30 on a new Win 2000 professional system. The
>>computer recognizes the scanner at startup but does not seem to install a
>>driver for it. Each startup the computer again recognizes the scanner and
>>begins the new
"Lawrence Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect."
Preston wonders:
If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
$3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or
even a high-end flat-bed
I do that as well. However, not all slides/negs need to be done that way.
Clearly there is a point of diminishing returns. BTW, I've had crappy drum
scans too. Really depends on the operator. My point was that they need to
be free of things like visible banding that make them look like striped
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
>
> > Seems pretty slight to me -
>
> Perhaps but it shows up in prints. As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they
> need to be perfect.
> >
> > What magnification are we looking at in the zoom?
>
> About 66%
>
>
> > Somebody was talking
> > about
I agree - I was just about to write as much.
I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are
you prints 36 inches square? Crikey
Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do multi-scann
>
> And as final thought, 30 minutes per image of scanning costs you real
> time/money. Whatever saving you're achieving by not using
> third-party drum
> scanning is offset by you having to sit around feeding negs. What hourly
> rate do you put on your time in the digital darkroom?
>
The digit
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote:
>
> > Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's "MF" mean?
>
> On this list, it means medium-format. Elsewhere, it might mean
> something entirely different
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Stan McQueen wrot
Interesting article. It actually makes me want to go on such a workshop.
Jawed
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith
> Sent: 19 July 2001 01:47
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 bandin
[Started a new thread - going off-topic somewhat]
Rafe wrote:
> [Jawed wrote:]
> > May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about
> the way Nikon
> > Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
> >
> > Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is
> that Nikon
> > Sc
At 01:20 AM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed wrote:
>I agree - I was just about to write as much.
>
>I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
>across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are
>you prints 36 inches square? Crikey
I'm not Lawrence
> If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
> $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum
> scanner or
> even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be
> "perfect". There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some
>
A quick measurement of those "teeth" on the 8000 ED
film holders shows 8 teeth per inch (0.125" pitch.)
OTOH, the banding that I've seen has a period (width)
of about 30-35 pixels, which is well under 0.01" at 4000 dpi.
Scratch that theory.
rafe b.
I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that
the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various
settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no
a
> I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested
> to me that
> the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried
> some various
> settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
> to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If
on 7/18/01 2:55 PM, Terry Carroll at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
>
>> Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
>> scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
>> value.
>
> Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's "MF" mean?
>
I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at:
http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm
(Photos of shed, and snow-covered boats.)
These might explain why some of us are pretty
excited about this machine, in spite of all the
negative talk 'round here.
This was a totally uncorr
"Lawrence Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Lawrence wonders why he detects a bit of an attitude in your reply. I'm
sure they are many others on this list whose work sells for as much or more
than mine does. If you doubt that I am being truthful, I'd be happy to send
you to a location where you
What I didn't understand from the linked images is that under magnification
it appeared that there was some sharpening halos around some objects, while
the image overall looked a bit soft?
(Also, if that is banding, then that appears to be the same problem I am
working on with our Scanwits - I ag
I am not involved with this thread, and I don't have a Nikon. I do have a
low end (Acer Scanwit) and want to comment on this attitude.
I don't think anyone questions that you get what you pay for and $3,000 is
certainly not going to compete with $30,000. However, basic functionality
should be the
This is a wild-ass guess, but maybe memory at the byte level isn't being
accessed or allocated or released properly, and what appears as a band is
the result of regular 'overflows'.
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I've found something out. Thanks
Well,
Thanks for all the suggestions.
I have altered my work habits a little based on them. For now I am going to
be shooting Fugi HG 100 most of the time until I feel I have most the
variables under predictable control. (I will still shoot a roll of Provia
100F occasionally, just for the thrill
>
> Lawrence, if you detect an attitude of disrespect, I apologize. None was
> intended.
LOL No problem and really no need to apologize. I certainly did not think
you being disrespectful, it simply sounded skeptical is all. The bottom
line here is that my ls2000 does not band. Why should my
Lawrence wrote:
>settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
>to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears.
Does the banding occur in Vuescan output?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet..
Lawrence
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear T
Well, just when you think you've made progress the scanner fools you. On
further testing I started getting bands without making any adjustments.
This is one strange machine. One thing is consistent however, the banding
is much worse at 16x. at 1x it is essentially invisible.
Lawrence
>
> I've
on 7/18/01 11:11 PM, rafeb wrote:
> I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at:
>
> http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm
Rafe,
I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw
raises a somewhat generic question for me.
The blue channel of the p
This makes it sound more like a software issue. I would further bet that the
number of pixels between band peaks is evenly divisible by 8. It also makes
me think I was on the right track with my earlier guess. It sounds like the
samples aren't completely being reset to zero before another sample i
>I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet..
Pity - it would be a useful comparison. Maybe someone should send Ed a
SCSI command dump?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
--- tflash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what
> appears to be jpeg
> artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know
> the blue channel is
> typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I
> forget why. Isn't it because
> the CCD elements are least
79 matches
Mail list logo