Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/images/ss4000nghalloween.jpg I'm getting a 404 on this and http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/images/ss4000slhalloween37gamma.jpg On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:29:45 +, you wrote: >I received a couple of days ago some sample scans from Johnny Deadman aka John >Brownlow

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:29:45 +, you wrote: > >I received a couple of days ago some sample scans from Johnny Deadman aka > John Brownlow on his SS4000. site at: > >http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/ OK, I checked the samples out. Very interesting. Observations

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I just looked at the Polaroid 4000 and Canon scans of the Halloween slide, after reading that comment that the Polaroid didn't look much (or any) better than the Canon. One reason might be that the slide was inserted backwards in the Polaroid, so the emulsion side is facing the wrong way. Might

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

>= Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = >I just looked at the Polaroid 4000 and Canon scans of the Halloween slide, >after reading that comment that the Polaroid didn't look much (or any) better >than the Canon. One reason might be that the slide was inserted backwards in >the Polaroi

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I have been reading up on the Nikon LS2000 and the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. The more I read the more confused I get. The Nikon has low resolution compared to the Polaroid, but comes with Digital Ice and Altamira Genuine Fractals(which is supposed to enlarge a 35mm photo to billboard size.

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Melba wondered: > I have been reading up on the Nikon LS2000 and the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. >The more I read the more confused I get. The Nikon has low resolution compared > to the Polaroid, but comes with Digital Ice and Altamira Genuine Fractals(which > is supposed to enlarge a 35mm photo to

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

conclusions drawn. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation -Original Message- From: jowilcox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:21 AM To: Filmscanners Subject: RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans >= Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = >I j

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

David Hemingway wrote: > I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various > levels of knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control. But hopefully with testing of the same films on different machines using vuescan helps. The protocol used relies on a single version of vuesca

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> David Hemingway wrote: > > I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various > > levels of knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control. _- > But hopefully with testing of the same films on different machines > using vuescan helps. The protocol used

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Rob's already posted in regards to the attempt to eliminate operator inconsitency from the project. The only inconsistancy would be blatant error and those inherent in VueScan 6.02. >> I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various levels of >> knowledge and ability. Es

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Zeuspaul wrote: >To the best of my knowledge Vuescan has separate drivers for different >scanners. What guarantee is there that the drivers are of equal >quality? If focusing is required does Vuescan do it as well as the >manufacturers software? maybe better? maybe not as well? AIUI, Ed has rev

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Your concerns are all valid, but one of the intents of the group scan was to teach the owners of the individual scanners how the other scanners would handle their sample images. On my Bug Catcher slide, I'm noticing a difference in how the hat highlight is handled, and the appearance of the gr

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

This reply is in two parts. First a comment on David's concerns. I think by using the same software/version AND specifying the scanning parameters the way we did, we have largely mitigated the concern of varying operator skill level. However, there still remains the chance of unwitting finger

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Byron wrote: > Still, there is more going on than this. The Polaroid scan is heavily > clipped on highlights. FWIW I could scan the films on the SS4000 at work for comparison when the films arrive. This won't be for some time, however! That might at least point to whether it was a problem with

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> I occasionally get > varying results with my scanner scanning the same slide twice with the > same version of Vuescan after having made NO CHANGES in any settings. IME Vuescan is quite sensitive to accurate positioning of the film relative to the cropping marquee. Any variations here can aff

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Alan, So you are not impressed with the SS4000 at all? Melba The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSC

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

bjs wrote: > So the question is: Does > the Polaroid occasionally mess up its exposure setting and is this a Vuescan > bug or a firmware bug (assuming Vuescan is calling a firmware auto exposure and > not setting it on its own). Or simply an unexplained anomaly? Beats me. > > Cheers, > B

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

"Hemingway, David J" wrote: > > I have been watching with interest with interest and a little apprehension > this project. Now that you have gotten to the SS4000 I will voice my concern > regarding some results and conclusions. > I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

trying to force the issue. At least for film scanners it may be it is a relatively small industry. David -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scan

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

It has been mentioned in passing the operator experience plays a large factor in these tests. I know looking back at my early b&w scans done on a Polaroid 35+ before PolaColor came out on a PC. The results were pretty grim. After a year of struggling moved the scanner over to a MAC got one of the

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> I was going to sit this one out and watch what happened, but (since it's > what I use) the conclusions that are being formulated about the > Pol4000+Vuescan mostly do not accord with my experience. The picture is > emerging of a scanner which blows highlights, isn't particularly sharp, > and pro

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Melba in Korea wrote: > I have been reading up on the Nikon LS2000 and the Polaroid > Sprintscan 4000. The more I read the more confused I get. The > Nikon has low resolution compared to the Polaroid, but comes > with Digital Ice and Altamira Genuine Fractals(which is > supposed to enlarge a 35mm

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 3:51 AM Subject: RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > 1. Highlight detail can be clipped in software, but that's the software

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I'm very impressed with the ss4000, and even like the Software. Are the scans three times the quality of a Canon 2720; certainly not! In some cases they are not even marginally better: but sometimes they are. Alan Melba's Mail wrote: > Alan, > So you are not impressed with the SS4000 at al

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: "ILyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:50 PM Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > I have no dispute with the concept and aims of the experiment, but much that >

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

At 03:50 PM 18-09-00, you wrote: >Like Tony, David and I dare say a few others I have kept quiet about this >series of tests. You could always go back to keeping quiet :) >Alan and Co are free to write what they please and publish where and how >they see it, but they also have a "duty" to ensure

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

>Your concerns are all valid, but one of the intents of the group scan was to teach >the owners of the >individual scanners how the other scanners would handle their sample images. This aspect of the group scans has a lot of merit. I too am interested in how others handle various types of image

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I suggest adding this to the protocol: include details of specified areas (e.g. the infamous witch's hat) in 100% jpeg (no compression) and/or downloadable tif show color curves from raw tiff of each picture & detail Bill Ross

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> Zeuspaul wrote: > >To the best of my knowledge Vuescan has separate drivers for different > >scanners. What guarantee is there that the drivers are of equal > >quality? If focusing is required does Vuescan do it as well as the > >manufacturers software? maybe better? maybe not as well? > > AI

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

John wrote: >This aspect of the group scans has a lot of merit. I too am interested >in how others handle various types of images. I am also interested in >various film types and if different scanners handle them differently. >My skepticism relates to comparing the hardware. I never thought tha

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I'm starting to explore the possibility of getting the full res tiffs onto a CD at the end of the group scan that could be made available to people for a time and materials basis. It's tough if someone doesn't have a ZIP drive or a CDR/W to provide the files in the 37 meg and up range.. ;)

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Nope, not pissed. Often feel MUGGED by your posts, not your views. >> No doubt many will be severely pissed at my views, but consider this - I'm equally pissed at the garbage being passed off as helpful information. It would have been helpful if in the initial stages of coming with a method you

re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

>> show color curves from raw tiff of each picture & detail Do you mean a histogram? Yes. You should be able to dl the files and look at the different shapes from the scanners. There is quite a difference. Better to show it directly on the web, i

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

In a message dated 9/18/2000 6:19:04 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > There may be Vuescan bugs depending on whether it calculates the exposure > setting or uses the scanners firmware. Ed would have to give us some > guidance on that point. VueScan computes the exposure from the preview,

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Hemingway, David wrote: > > I have been watching with interest with interest and a little apprehension > this project. Now that you have gotten to the SS4000 I will voice > my concern > regarding some results and conclusions. > I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various level

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

You should apart from the jpegd versions include in your test uncompressed output of significant details (blackpoint, whitepoint, resolution, noise).Because Jpeg is making artefacts, because it reduces detail. People should use generic test images like the Q60, a greyscale density test image and s

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Can someone please post the URL of the Group Scan site. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --->>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ / > You should apart from the jpegd versions include in your test uncompressed > output of significant details (blackpoint

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

The color quality and noise are also things VueScan can't do a lot about. Can you explain these results then: http://www.amber.ucsf.edu/~ross/gallery/tech/banding3.html Bill Ross The filmscanners mailing lis

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone please post the URL of the Group Scan site. http://home.att.net/~arwbackup/ Regards, Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign,

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

In a message dated 9/18/2000 9:45:55 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > When I use Vuescan approximately one in twenty scans is out of focus. > Sometimes an out of focus scan will appear after 6 scans and sometimes > it will appear after 30 scans. I can determine no consistency. Does the sc

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> I never thought that the group scanning exercise was something > that would become the basis for choosing a scanner. I *hope* > people don't use the information that way. Unless it is explicitly stated it should NOT be viewed in this way then they will do exactly that. Ian Lyons http://wel

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Zeuspaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience indicates they are not. Using Vuescan with a Minolta > Dimage Multi I occasionally get an out of focus scan. Again, this is an issue for Ed to address, not me. I haven't had such issues with Vuescan and the LS30. Rob ===

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Farzan S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a statistician, I must agree with David. Really, this is a futile > exercise and drawing conclusions based on it would be a mistake. Oh, come on. If that's the only "right" attitude we might as well all unsubscribe from the mailing list because any inform

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> You could always go back to keeping quiet :) "Speech is silver, silence is golden" :-) > Umm, when you crop an image, the file size goes down. I imagine that since the > ss4000 has a higher resolution it will have a bigger file size. > Why don't you do a your own scanner test (since you

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

sirius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doing testing by scanning just any peoples slide doesnt make any sense and > makes the tests in my opinion pretty worthless. The point of scanning other people's slides was to scan a slide which was causing problems on one scanner to see if the same problems oc

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> I agree conclusions shouldn't be spread afar until all the data is in. > Certainly it is far too early to be making any final conclusions with less > than > 10% of the data available. You have passed comments good/bad/indifferent it matters not on at least two scanners and only 10% of the data

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 11:40 PM Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > The best way to see if the hardware has noise is to carefully > analyze the raw scan from the sc

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > Oh, come on. If that's the only "right" attitude we might as > well al

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> Nope, not pissed. Often feel MUGGED by your posts, not your views. I wouldn't hurt a fly, I help old dears across the road, before taking their money :-) > It would have been helpful if in the initial stages of coming with a method > you would have shared your wisdom. It's been noted that yo

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> OK, for light reading I've attached a zip file containing these two > histograms. > The ss4000 histogram is after I resampled it down to 2720 dpi in > Photoshop. > This averages the noise and gives the Polaroid a head start which it > needs when > going up against the Canon [1]. Setting the

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Digital Ice can be replaced with better handling and Genuine Fractals are simply making up what doesn't exist. I'd far rather extract what does exist with the higher resolution. In article <005101c02113$21ac2940$25f22fd3@User>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Melba's Mail) wrote: > I have been reading up

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

JPEG plays such absolute havoc with images that I'd never use any JPEGS to try and compare scanners. Download time or no download time, only uncompressed or lossless formats should be used if you're using the images for knocking copy... In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wro

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> > When I use Vuescan approximately one in twenty scans is out of focus. > > Sometimes an out of focus scan will appear after 6 scans and sometimes > > it will appear after 30 scans. I can determine no consistency. > > Does the scanner make the focusing noise for every frame in the > film hol

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

In a message dated 9/20/2000 5:30:48 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The color quality and noise are also things VueScan can't do > a lot about. > > Can you explain these results then: > >http://www.amber.ucsf.edu/~ross/gallery/tech/banding3.html You're quite right - there are som

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> Not correct Tony. Byron, I was going to reply to your very long msg point by point, but frankly I don't have the time. Some points have been discussed here very recently (notably the relationship of bit depth to dynamic range, which you persist in believing are independent entities). So I

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: "ILyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > > I never thought that the group scanning exercise was something > &g

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> But he uses only one single slide to make his tests and determinations. > And > the tests are done by unknown people with unknown skill levels using > undefined > parameters. They can do whatever they want with the scan and use > unknown or > different software for each unit. > > Sharpnes

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

>> JPEG plays such absolute havoc with images that I'd never use any JPEGS >> to try and compare scanners. Download time or no download time, only >> uncompressed or lossless formats should be used if you're using the >> images for knocking copy... You know that, I know that and goodness knows h

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [lots of stuff snipped] > 5yrs later I'm still ignorant, but at least I know I am ignorant. Did > anyone even look at these samples or wonder why the hell they were so > different when the protocol said they should be the same? Did anyone > play around with

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

ILyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some of your colleagues attempt to defend the > indefensible (whether it was answering Tonys or my comments), point by > point, they have learned nothing!! Ian, you might do well to consider that in some respects, one day, you might be wrong. As far as learnin

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

You go Tony!!! Regards, Denise The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

In a message dated 9/21/2000 1:41:13 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It has focusing noise and the focus indication at the bottom of Vuescan > (6.0 beta 19 Minolta Scan Multi) for each of the four scans. This is pretty old. Can you try VueScan 6.1.1? You can download it from: http://ww

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Derek wrote: > Digital Ice can be replaced with better handling Couldn't agree more. But short of doing your own developing, minilabs can wreak all sorts of damage! I found some old negs of my wedding, still just in the paper folder from the minilab and not even in individual sleeves! I did

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Byron, > This list goes on but if this isn't the very definition of test methodology > that is full of holes I don't know what is. Why doesn't it get your "this > site is harmful if used for selecting a scanner" stamp > > Seems like a double standard to me. I have on many occasions ma

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> OK, Tony. Rather than let this whole exercise dissolve into a flame war > about methods, intentions, and so on, do you (and Ian Lyons, who also > has strong opinions on this subject) have practical suggestions for how > the data should be presented and viewed? I'd like to think that it's > pos

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans > (a) The gamma and black point of the Polaroid (Halloween pic) are set > low

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

One very important factor in scanner testing which hasn't even been mentioned, let alone taken into account in these tests is TEMPERATURE. One manufacturer's data sheet states that CCD dark current doubles for every 9 degrees Celsius rise in temperature, and this seems entirely in line with the

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

photoscientia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, unless all these tiny details are taken into consideration > and controlled, there's very little objective conclusion that can be > arrived at from this group scan test. I agree. However, at least from my perspective, I'm not interested in objec

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

... 16bit scans are needed to get a fullest picture of scanner behaviour, but two, that 16bit scans are just raw material, and invariably need work involving more software and human judgement before looking half-decent. So: arriving at useable v

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: venerdì 22 settembre 2000 20.28 Subject: RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans Derek wrote:> Digital Ice can be replaced with better handlingCouldn't agree more.  But short of doing your own developing, minilabs can

Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

> More objective: have one person do the adjustments > on all the raw scans. Exactly what I concluded I should be doing, with various film types, about 9m ago :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons

RE: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

I was going to sit this one out and watch what happened, but (since it's what I use) the conclusions that are being formulated about the Pol4000+Vuescan mostly do not accord with my experience. The picture is emerging of a scanner which blows highlights, isn't particularly sharp, and produces

re[2]: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

404 errors I fixed the link. Didn't notice that the FTP software had reported an error back stating I was out of space up there, so moved the SS4000's to another webspace.. It's always the two out of 10 that you don't check that will haunt you! alan ==

re[2]: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans

Bug catcher was not on the CD that Johnny sent the full res TIFFS to me on. BTW I've installed a CDRW drive and would be willing to collect all the full res scans from all the participants in TIFF format. If anyone is interested in this CD, email me off list and we'll figure out terms. But it

Emulsion Side (was Re: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans)

I was wondering if someone would clarify which way the emulsion side should be facing. Should the Emulsion Side face toward or away from the light source in the scanner? At 12:48 AM 17-09-00, you wrote: >I just looked at the Polaroid 4000 and Canon scans of the Halloween slide, >after reading

On the SS4000 (was: Group Scan site has posted SS4000 scans)

Rob Geraghty wrote: > FWIW I was going to buy a SS4000 before I decided on the LS30, > and the *only* reason I was forced to change my mind was cost. I > still believe that in it's price bracket, the SS4000 is the best > scanner I know of on the market. Unfortunately, we can't all > afford it.