Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. I, also, think there's merit in your plan and I hope it works. Do you think it will work well enough for a colorblind person like me to get "acceptable" results? I get decent results with E-6 transparency film, but my one feeble attempt with negative film didn't go well. For E-6, I use SilverFast rather than Insight (for my SS4000) because it can be IT-8 calibrated. I'm getting close to having my workflow nailed down so that I don't need to do any color corrections; I just make the E-6 scan and do an occasional contrast or brightness tweak in SilverFast. I usually shoot in a studio setting, so I have total control over exposure, contrast, lighting, etc. I normally shoot medium format negative film and when a client needs something for the web, I have to shoot some 35 mm E-6 in addition so that I can scan it with my SS4000. A good negative profiling system for the SS 120 would allow me to shoot medium format negative film for virtually all of my jobs. I have a Microtek ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner with IT-8 calibrated ScanWizard software that I can use to scan medium format film, but its ScanWizard software has limited negative film profiles (none for Kodak 160NC that I use) and I could find none that were even close to acceptable. Being colorblind, I want the machinery to do what I can't. And even if I had good color vision, I'd still want to as little "mothering" of the negative scan as I could get away with. My time is too valuable to do by hand what technology can when enough money is thrown at it.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. I don't really understand what you're after... A raw scan every time? Absolutely not! I don't do raw scans. What I was trying to say, was get the scan right in the scanner driver (setpoints and tonal curves). Learning how to use setpoints and tonal adjustments in the scanner driver can go a LONG way. Clean negatives goes a long way too ;-) All tonal adjustments have to be done with high bit data, and for me, that means in the scanner. My scanner gets the tonal adjustments downloaded to it, and performs that on the fly, so only 8 bit data gets send to the PC.
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and Occam's Razor - OT
He paraphrases Sir William's insight with the phrase that the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct. ... So the Earth is flat? But simple is not simple to define. I prefer Entities should not be unnecessarily introduced. I don't think the universe is bound by my notions of simplicity. ;^P There is a little part left out of the first paraphrase, which if extended could read that the simpler the explanation which fits with all relevant observations, the more likely it is to be correct. Unfortunately, a flat earth does not fit with many observations that can be made in nature. So my preferred version... when trying to explain anything, choose the simplest possible explanation which fits all the facts. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Right, but it saved a lot of time... I could then concentrate on tweaking instead of starting all over again for every image. I believe that this is what Polaroid is after... Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't really understand what you're after... A raw scan every time? Once again, we're talking about options. For the people that want to get really involved, there are the raw scans from vuescan to work with. For people that don't want to bother, there are a variety of programs available that can get pretty decent results right off the bat, and for many people that's all they need. This is all Polaroid is offering, another option... Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) Yeah, but you gotta start somewhere... I am all in favor of making technology more accessible to people. There are many that refer to this as dumbing down, but without exception, the people that use that phrase already know how to use that piece of equipment...:-) Isaac
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Thanks to all for your input. After looking at the print quality in a local (an hours drive away) I decided that the P-400's quality didn't justify the large price increase ... so I'm going to place my order for the Epson 1280. Regards, -Nick T. Nick Taylor wrote: Sorry about the off topic post, but I think that most everyone that uses a film scanner also has some printer experience. I'm considering a replacement for my Epson Stylus Color 800 inkjet printer. Two printers have been highly recommended to me, the Epson Photo Stylus 1280 and the Olympus P-400. Does anyone here have experience with either or both of these printers? I would appreciate any and all comments, experiences, suggestions, flames, etc. Thanks, -Nick T.
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've received some why bother and it's a bad idea comments from Austin Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. I'm sorry that I gave the impression that it's a bad idea. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. I do believe that it will do some people some good, as a starting point. But to believe that you can just 'pick your film' and your scan will be perfect, I think would not be the case, and lead to disappointment. As a note, I don't believe other vendors are taking this approach, for what ever reason. Anyone know if I mistaken about this?
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS2000 problem
My LS2000 (running on a beige G3 rev 1 desktop system 8.6 384 meg ram) has just begun producing unsharp scans. The blurring seems mostly to be in the direction of scanning (parallel to the long side) sometimes the scan dissolves from poor image into long (artistic!) streaks. I am also getting intermittent 'can't focus' error messages. I'm getting this with Silverfast 4, NikonScan 2 Vuescan 7 - all current versions. It looks to me like it must be hardware - but most of my 'hardware' problems in the past have turned out to really be software - so has anyone on the list got any ideas what's happening before I sling the box back to Nikon? TIA David Hoffman -- __ David Hoffman Photo Library http://www.hoffmanphotos.com phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041 When in danger or in doubt - run in circles, scream shout.
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Richard N. Moyer wrote: One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies include SCSI cards which are/were not conformant with the standards. This is very important (conformance with the Standard), and goes back to the discussion about Open and Control. The IEEE standards are long and complex, and technical, including the various ramifications of the SCSI Standard. Companies have often offered abbreviated SCSI (really shouldn't even use the term SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the standard, to cheapen the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. They didn't tell you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, who, more often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most of these stunted cards would connect only the scanner included in the package, and would never connect more than one device on a chain in accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of companies who did this, some might surprise you. They did what they thought they could get away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to find out that a penny saved - - - -. The same thing has happened with software. Yes there are Standards at play here to, one of which you are using now - MIME used in e-mail. And the biggest abuser was - - guess who? Could it be Satan? (Many know him as Bill?) The above situation is what I suspected might be the case, but, I'll give an example of the other side. My UMAX scanner came with a DTC card, which Umax indicated would only work with their scanner. UMAX North America's web site claimed the same thing. However, on researching further the UMAX UK site was kind enough to mention that with a different driver, the card would work with most SCSI products and support up to 6 other devices, also. It took some work to configure, since it required some jumpers be moved (I was luck that my card had the jumpers, apparently many versions didn't and one would have to cut or solder wires). It does work, and I'm running my Zip drive on it, and my UMAX scanner. Art
Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2
Write to Silverfast or read at http://lasersoft-imaging.com/english/ Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden From: Robert Kehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:53:01 -0500 Mikael, Do you know if Silverfast 5.2 supports batch scanning of full rolls of 35mm film with the Nikon LS-4000 using the SA-30 roll film adapter? Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:18 PM Subject: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 Took a quick look at the new NikonScan 3.1 version nr 3.1.0 3004 plugin LS 4000 relesed today. Same as before. Crasch boom bang with photoshop, slow scanning speed comparing to Silverfast. Silverfast are at least 5 times faster to scan a full resolution picture and no bugs. I heard from collegues at a Swedish newspaper that the new Polaroid 120 scanner in many respects is better than a tested Imacon scanner. I will test the polaroid scanner this sunday and see if this true. If it is: congratulation Polaroid. The software they used together with the scanner was Silverfast. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan
I have not tried Vuescan on LS4000 but its a good basic software on LS2000. If you want a pro software and know what you are doing or will learn to scan pictures Silverfast is the best software to have IMO. And its very fast scanning software even with different filters on. In Europe we get Silverfast bundle together with Nikon LS2000 and Polaroid scanners. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden -- From: Ray Amos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:54:13 -0400 Friends, I have and love the new Nikon LS4000 scanner. According to some on this usergroup and others I know, the software that comes with the scanner is inferior. Some say Silverfast, some say Vuscan. Where do you get these software packages and how much do they cost? Which is better? What will they do that NikonScan 3.1 won't do? Thanks. Ray Amos _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS2000 problem
In a message dated 6/8/2001 3:45:11 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My LS2000 (running on a beige G3 rev 1 desktop system 8.6 384 meg ram) has just begun producing unsharp scans. The blurring seems mostly to be in the direction of scanning (parallel to the long side) sometimes the scan dissolves from poor image into long (artistic!) streaks. I am also getting intermittent 'can't focus' error messages. I think there's a cable inside that sometimes catches while scanning. Thumping the scanner on it's side sometimes fixes the problem. It's fairly easy to take apart also. Check that none of the cables have worked their way loose. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
You are confusing Acer with Microtek, who is the manufacturer of the Polaroid SS 4000 scanner. I'm fairly sure not even the Microtek and Polaroid versions can use interchangeable software, due to some built in code that is checked for. Art Richard N. Moyer wrote: I could be wrong, but doesn't Acer make the Polaroid scanner, and if so, would not the drivers from this machine work on Acer. Might ask Polaroid - - List, I thank you all very much for your information and advice. My last two days have been painful and difficult, and I think I really understand now what Art meant when he wrote that configuring them [SCSI devices] took years off my life I'm never getting back! I pray for USB and Firewire now. I would like to obtain a divorce from SCSI forever. huge snip ---
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is ineffective film terms. What do you believe film terms are? There are two issues here (well three actually). One is the film it self, two is the image on the film, and three is the scanner. Of course, I want to color correct for the image on the film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for the scanner. Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they are image dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the correct setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film. The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management. I am the scanner color management! Scanner color management is somewhat dubious, IMO. Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all somewhat consistent...more so than film! I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! Obviously, the level of accuracy required of monitor and printer profiles isn't possible or required. I don't remember suggesting otherwise. If you don't want to use film terms (profiles), then don't. The scanner police won't break down your door, I promise. Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach I fail to see the reason for your original post. Really Austin, what is the problem? Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac Adding isn't the right word exactly, let's say the Nikon without ICE 'exaggerates' dust and scratches. So why not just use ICE then and be done with it? I do, except in the case of certain Kodachromes, which exhibit artifacts with ICE scans that *are* added, and detract significantly from image quality. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) And what would you know of humility g
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o) Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against everything I've read and my own personal experience I guess all I can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. The Nikon sees stuff that the Agfa does not, quite a bit of stuff in fact. Scans of glass mounted slides are so freckled that retouching would be logistically impractical. So I do consider this a problem in the context of Kodachrome and BW, as it sometimes doesn't work well with ICE. Or do you disagree with this too? Dave
Re: filmscanners: Ghosting on the Acer 2740S
In a message dated 6/7/2001 2:32:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Running my new 2740S with the latest VueScan, when I try multiple passes or the extra-long IR scan, I see a ghost image displaced slight upwards. Yes, the hardware in the ScanWit doesn't always accurately reposition the film holder for each pass. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. What problems did the old scanners have with excessive dust and scratches? I haven't seen anything with my LS30 I'd describe as a problem with respect to dust and scratches on chromogenic film. The only problem I've had with the the Nikon I'd describe as a fault is the jaggies produced by Nikonscan (which Vuescan cures). Do you mean the collimated light highlighting dust and scratches? I wouldn't expect that to change either. In addition, I'd like to know if performance *with* ICE has improved when scanning Kodachrome and BW films. Presumably the behaviour would be identical with Kodachrome and BW film because the behaviour with IR is the same. Rob Nikon appears to claim improved performance in these regards in their literature, and there is now a specific Kodachrome setting, (but not BW?). The problems are documented in many of the more thorough reviews, so I don't think I'm alone here. I'm wondering if anyone has, or wouldn't mind, testing the difference and reporting the result, as I have many Kodachromes to scan and print, and 'm trying to decide between the 4000 dpi Polaroid and Nikon. Dave
RE: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan
Silverfast is at http://www.silverfast.com - the price is $307 USD Vuscan is a http://www.hamrick.com - the price is $40 which includes Vueprint as well. I've been using Vuescan for a over a year now. I bought Silverfast 5 for my Polaroid SS4000 (before it was bundled) and consider it to be the biggest waste of money in my digital darkroom experience. Not kidding. High bit scans in Vuescan and final corrections in PS6 for me are faster and better than anything Silverfast can offer. I've downloaded and tried NikonScan 3.1 and it doesn't produce any better images than 3.0, and IMO the interface still sucks. Vuescan is still faster and better, amd I even prefer the interface. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: Ray Amos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan Friends, I have and love the new Nikon LS4000 scanner. According to some on this usergroup and others I know, the software that comes with the scanner is inferior. Some say Silverfast, some say Vuscan. Where do you get these software packages and how much do they cost? Which is better? What will they do that NikonScan 3.1 won't do? Thanks. Ray Amos
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard general correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't work. There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-) Since you profess interest in both humility and learning, I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Dave
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA -- On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
OK, here's my 2 cents on this. First, Polaroid are not alone in offering this. Silverfast ships with a bunch of profiles, as does Vuescan. Are they helpful? NO. The first problem is that they don't keep up to date with the emulsions. It is extremely confusing trying to work out which profile goes with which emulsion. Vuescan for example has profiles for Tmax 400 in D76 at various contrast indices, but no profiles for TriX or any Ilford films. It has profiles for all six generations of Kodak Gold 400 but nothing for 400 VC. And so on. Silverfast has profiles called Kodak 1, Kodak 2 and Kodak 3 but no clue as to which emulsions they refer to. So, inevitably, they are out of date as soon as shipped. The second problem is that it's never clear what these 'profiles' are supposed to do. I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse HD curve, presumably, plus a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the same. The Silverfast profiles, for their part, apply a custom 'color space expansion', which means that they come with predefined min/max set points for the individual color channels. Does this *actually* work on color neg? No. Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. The third problem is that *even if the profiles were useful and worked properly* film developing varies so much that you always have to tweak afterwards. I wish scanner manufacturers would stick to the knitting. What is ACTUALLY useful (ok, to me) in a scanner driver? -- faithful rendition of *actual image colors* in all cases. In other words, proper calibration of the scanner CCD. Silverfast does this well on the SS4000. -- ability to handle color neg properly. This is SO simple and yet rarely done well. In essence, remove the orange mask, invert and set the expansion points for the individual channels. Vuescan does this well, but the GUI is very confusing which negates the benefit. -- ability to handle bw neg properly. As Austin says this means set black/white points and tonal curve. This means we need a good, detailed histogram and a curves box which functions as well as the industry standard, Photoshop. Neither Silverfast nor Polascan are up to snuff on this. -- the ability to output gamma-corrected high-bit scans. In the case of neg, inverted gamma corrected high bit scans. In the case of color neg, mask removal on high bit scans. -- intuitive GUI which reflects standard interface guidelines. Silverfast, Polascan and Vuescan all fail miserably on this one. Polascan not quite as miserably as the others. Now, once you can do all this you can add as many consumer-friendly bells and whistles as you like. But UNTIL you can do it... yeah, well, you get it. So, film profiles? Who cares? There's a lot of stuff to get right first. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. Michael - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras.
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Nick Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my order for the Epson 1280. Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290 elsewhere? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS2000 problem
Ed Thanks for that! I think you're spot on. I took the thing off to return to Nikon - then thought I'd try it on a different scsi bus just to be sure so unpacked it set it up again. That involved quite a bit of rough(ish) handling due to the spaghetti nest on my desk. And it worked! I haven't yet tried it back on the old scsi bus but I bet you're right it'd work fine. And now I understand the problem I'll know what to do next time. My hero. David Hoffman -- __ David Hoffman Photo Library http://www.hoffmanphotos.com phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041 The early bird catches the worm but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
In light of some of the recent comments in regard to Acer scanners, and being that Honda Lo, the Acer rep who was at one point monitoring this list expressed interest a few months back in getting feedback about the products, I thought it might be a good idea to repeat his email address. People who wish to communicate directly with Acer about quality, software, service or other issues should write to Honda Lo at Acer. His email address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Art Todd Radel wrote: Art wrote: This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI card, and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would think. SCSI cards are an exception. I'm not sure about other types of PCI devices. As others have pointed out, it's partly because the cards contain an EPROM that allows booting off SCSI drives (and a BIOS as well in the case of a SCSI card designed for a PC), and such a boot ROM would need to be written for a specific platform. But it's not only that, as even cards which do not have any booting capability at all can still be incompatible across platforms. The DEC Alpha platform uses PCI but is not compatible with most PCI SCSI cards, boot ROM or not. Related question: many of the Mac- and Alpha-compatible PCI SCSI cards have the same chipsets on them that PC-compatible SCSI cards do (e.g. Adaptec 2940, Symbios 895). On cards without a boot ROM, I wonder what the difference could be? What makes a card incompatible with a Mac if there's no EPROM or BIOS? I am most emphatically not a Mac person, so I don't know. I'm actually surprised to here this. I thought the Acer was Mac compatible as it comes out of the box, and that would make me assume the SCSI card would also work. The 2740 packaging is misleading in many ways. The box also claims that the scanner is compatible with Win2K, and there is a Win2K driver for the SCSI card on the CD-ROM, but if you call Acer you'll find out that they will not support the use of their own scanner, their own SCSI card, and their own driver on Win2K. Why provide a driver at all then? Of course, these are the same support reps who didn't know what a SCSI terminator was, and suggested that I change the scanner device ID to 7, so I wouldn't look to them for any kind of SCSI support anyway. :( Personally, I tossed Acer's SCSI card into the closet and hooked the 2740 up to an Initio 9100UW card. I have four SCSI adapters in 2 different computers, and as much as I like what they do (and when they work, they work well) configuring them took years off my life I'm never getting back! Don't get me started. I could tell many war stories about the SCSI problems I've seen on everything from midrange HP and Sun boxes to workstations to PC's and Mac's. As you can probably imagine, I'm really pulling for FireWire to become popular. Quickly. :-) -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together http://www.schwag.org/ PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o) ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. The Nikon sees stuff that the Agfa does not, quite a bit of stuff in fact. ... Be fair! ... is the extra stuff the Nikon sees ONLY dust scratches? Derek I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust, scratches and grain being the light source. Its characteristics may be something to avoid, or may be a preference. As we attributed soft and hard images in the past to diffused and point source enlargers, either was a preference. It is also true, with post-scan software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make a soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a pain in the _ss! shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent, low res scans
Well, you have identified two of them. On looking at the post header, which reads: From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a few things, but OutLook Express which shipped bundled with Windows 95 was the most notorious violator of the MIME Standard. All this has been documented. In MS's defense, they claimed that the group that was responsible for OutLook was under undue time constraints, and did not have ample time to complete the job. which they belatedly tried to fix with a series of patches. But never did, and by the time Windows 98 came out, they simply came out with a new version. If you are using Netscape 6 (and Messenger)., the above does not apply. And UMAX was notorious - -. There are two more biggies with stunted SCSI cards, both with inadequate firmware which couldn't be flash upgraded - all of which resulted in a merry-go-round of finger pointing. All of this I observed having a Mac system and not directly impacted. But my son, whose business livelihood depended on a workable Windows system, working remotely from home base was ready to be institutionalized. Richard N. Moyer wrote: One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies include SCSI cards which are/were not conformant with the standards. This is very important (conformance with the Standard), and goes back to the discussion about Open and Control. The IEEE standards are long and complex, and technical, including the various ramifications of the SCSI Standard. Companies have often offered abbreviated SCSI (really shouldn't even use the term SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the standard, to cheapen the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. They didn't tell you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, who, more often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most of these stunted cards would connect only the scanner included in the package, and would never connect more than one device on a chain in accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of companies who did this, some might surprise you. They did what they thought they could get away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to find out that a penny saved - - - -. The same thing has happened with software. Yes there are Standards at play here to, one of which you are using now - MIME used in e-mail. And the biggest abuser was - - guess who? Could it be Satan? (Many know him as Bill?) The above situation is what I suspected might be the case, but, I'll give an example of the other side. My UMAX scanner came with a DTC card, which Umax indicated would only work with their scanner. UMAX North America's web site claimed the same thing. However, on researching further the UMAX UK site was kind enough to mention that with a different driver, the card would work with most SCSI products and support up to 6 other devices, also. It took some work to configure, since it required some jumpers be moved (I was luck that my card had the jumpers, apparently many versions didn't and one would have to cut or solder wires). It does work, and I'm running my Zip drive on it, and my UMAX scanner. Art
Re: filmscanners: open and control
B.Rumary wrote: Yes I heard about that on. Apparently the copyright on Mickey Mouse cartoons is about to run out and Disney are pushing the line that it would be un-American if a national icon could be copied by nasty foreigners, etc.! They want a special exception to copyright laws, just for them, although I'm sure all the other mega corporations would soon be jumping on this band wagon! I wouldn't worry about other corporations... Disney has that covered... ...they've bought them all over the last few years ;-) Art
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek writes ... In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light source emphasizes them is misleading. If you have a problem with dust and scratches, then you may indeed be unsatisfied with your scans ... but it isn't the scanner's fault, and in fact, the Nikons provide the best solution ... IR dust recognition. Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? shAf :o)
filmscanners: VueScan on Microtek Scanners
I've spent the past few days getting VueScan to work with the Microtek X12USL. There was someone on this list who needed this, but I lost their e-mail address. If you need a test version of this, please let me know in a private e-mail. I added a calibration function for all newer Microtek scanners, including the SprintScan 120, so if you have a newer Microtek scanner and you'd like to test VueScan with it, please send me a private e-mail (no need to clog up the list) and I'll send you a copy to test. Thanks, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Ghosting on the Acer 2740S
This sounds suspiciously like the ghosting that another member was getting on astronomy pictures with a different scanner. The jury's still out on what is/was causing it. I can't get my Acer 2027S to do this, although it will produce *other* curious aberations. Of course, I don't have IR, either. Best regards--LRA -- Original message: In a message dated 5/29/2001 12:22:18 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Running my new 2740S with the latest VueScan, when I try multiple passes or the extra-long IR scan, I see a ghost image displaced slight upwards. I have no trouble on single scans. Is this something wrong with the Acer, the software, or am I doing something stupid? I haven't checked yet with Acer. Thanks. Matt Prastein . There's no such thing as free lunch. Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind pointing me to where the list is?
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against everything I've read and my own personal experience. Don't believe everything you read (including what I write smile). I guess all I can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The whole Nikon scanners accentuate dust thing is just FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach What other scanner have film profiles? I fail to see the reason for your original post. I was questioning the reality of the usefulness of film profiles, given the inability to actually control a number of the variables. Simple as that. I don't dispute they are useful for some, but I believe that use is more limited than I took the intent to be.
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever) do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou? Art shAf wrote: Dave writes ... ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Not being a Mac person, I'm a bit out of my league, but Acer indicates the SCSI card they provide is proprietary, and will not work with other devices. I don't know if this is just a software driver matter, or if they really have some unique SCSI protocols. Maybe Ed Hamrick can shed some light, since I think he's analyzed the SCSI command set with the Acer products. Art Shough, Dean wrote: There is no need to buy an expensive UltraSCSI PCI card for use with a scanner. Try the Adaptec 2906 for under $50. Works great for me with my Minolta Scan Dual on both my old PowerBase 180 and on my newer G4/500. Scanners use the original narrow and slow SCSI protocols. The only reason to buy the fast, wide, LVD SCSI cards is if you want to set up a RAID array of SCSI disks - but then you don't want to put the scanner or any other narrow, slow devices on the same card.
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA -- On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek Clarke wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. I guess my take is that the adding of dust is just a corollary to having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that there is dust or damage to the film... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Raymond Carles wrote: You're comparing two VERY different beasts here! While the Epson is an inkjet printer, the Olympus is a fast dye sublimation (not inkjet) printer, one can use to print directly from a digital camera, no computer needed... This is a good point, although the differences are getting blurred these days, as inkjets get faster, and the ink costs go up, and the dot size decreases. Also the 6 color inkjets make the image so close to continuous tone, that again the lines are blurred. With more archival inks for inkjets and better UV protective layers on Dyesub, the permanence is about the same. Further still, there are a number of stand alone inkjet printers (Epson/Lexmark(under Kodak label)/HP (Photosmart series) now on the market, that use an interface built in to them that you can slip the flash memory of a digital camera without a computer in between. The main differences, practically speaking are: Usually, cost of materials on Dye sub are higher, and they also are consistent. Most use the same amount of materials if you are printing a dot in the center of a 8 x 10 sheet or a full image edge to edge. Inkjet printers use ink only where needed, not a dye sheet for each of 3 or 4 colors (CMY or CMYK) Usually, dye subs are limited to a maximum size in each dimension, which inkjets often allow for very long or unlimited length, but a limited width. Dye sub require very specialized media, while inkjets can provide a great variety of papers. Dye sub usually do a poor job with text, while inkjets provide very good text. Most dye sub are 300-400 dpi, but provide true 24 bit (16 million color) per addressable dot, while inkjets are higher resolution, but require a number of dots to emulate full color. That's why the text looks better on inkjet. Speed is similar for similar sized images at this point. Making test prints is very costly on a Dyesub, unless it uses special ring around software or some other type of test pattern (and usually still require a full page printout), because you can not make a small or partial print without using the full dye sheets. Some dye sub printers have tried using ribbons of dye sheets rather than full continuous sheets, but they had problems with banding. The benefit of inkjet (for me at least) is I can do tests using minimal consumables, over and over, if I need to in order to get very accurate color rendition. I don't know if dye subs and ICC profiles have improved tremendously, but when Kodak was pushing them a few years box, they were having some problems with color management. There is also less throw away waste with an inkjet, especially if you can recycle or refill your ink carts. Art
filmscanners: Which printer to get [maybe OT]
Folks, This may be a bit off topic, but I do believe that you can provide me some useful info on this matter. I'm seriously considering buying either Nikon LS-2000 or LS-4000 for my digital darkroom. Which printer should I get to get the max out of one of these scanners? I'd like to be able to use larger paper sizes than 8.5x11. Maybe 11x17 or A3. And I would like to get a system where I can use archival inks -- like the bottle system Epson's got. What would you recommend? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: Scanner software (was Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme)
At 09:07 AM 6/8/01 -0400, Johnny Deadman wrote: OK, here's my 2 cents on this. snip Now, once you can do all this you can add as many consumer-friendly bells and whistles as you like. But UNTIL you can do it... yeah, well, you get it. So, film profiles? Who cares? There's a lot of stuff to get right first. I agree. Perhaps it's the feature bloat disease that Microsoft pioneered - call a bug a feature and add more features rather than fix the fundamentals. And interface design - that's for wimps, real users don't need a simple interface. This is hard stuff right? So it should be hard to use. I'll learn something hard if it has a payoff (e.g. photoshop), but with my ss4000 I do the minimum in the scanner software and go to photoshop. I enjoy your refreshing comments. Roy Roy Smyth, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Ed, I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against everything I've read and my own personal experience. Don't believe everything you read (including what I write smile). I guess all I can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The whole Nikon scanners accentuate dust thing is just FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and Occam's Razor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marvin Demuth wrote: While waiting for my RA4 chemicals to come up to 35 degrees C, I had time to look up Ockham on the web. You live in an interesting area. I also had time to refresh my memory of my first introduction to Occam's Razor. John Bogel, the founder of the fabulous Vanguard Mutual Funds Group, devotes a chapter in his most recent book (Common Sense on Mutual Funds) to its application to returns on investments. He paraphrases Sir William's insight with the phrase that the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct. We all have so much to learn in mastering our skills in analysis and communication. I liked the remark I saw some years ago in a article about UFO freaks, conspiracy theorists, etc., that they would use Occam's razor to cut your throat! ;-) Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek Clarke wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. I guess my take is that the adding of dust is just a corollary to having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that there is dust or damage to the film... Isaac Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and BW without artifacting and time spent retouching? This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it certainly isn't the scanner's fault if there is dust on film, there is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can give a crunchy quality to the tonal structure some would not want. Some prefer the extra punch of this light. But all of these tonal and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and BW! There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind pointing me to where the list is? http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o) ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. The Nikon sees stuff that the Agfa does not, quite a bit of stuff in fact. ... Be fair! ... is the extra stuff the Nikon sees ONLY dust scratches? Derek I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust, scratches and grain being the light source. Its characteristics may be something to avoid, or may be a preference. As we attributed soft and hard images in the past to diffused and point source enlargers, either was a preference. It is also true, with post-scan software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make a soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a pain in the _ss! shAf :o) I prefer the sharpness of the Nikon LED light source, other things being equal. Aye, there's the rub, Kodachrome and BW (starting to sound like a broke record:). So, I would be very interested in hearing the opinions of anyone who has compared differences of -no- ICE scans on general emulsions, and Kodachrome scanning -with- ICE, between the current and previous generation of Nikons. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I'm sorry that I gave the impression that it's a bad idea. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 rhododendron back to life! ;-p Todd
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
LOL... Good god. Some people REALLY like to hear/read themselves speak don't they? Lawrence The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 rhododendron back to life! ;-p Todd
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. I did a scan of the same slide on my LS-30 and the SS4000 that you loaned me (thanks again by the way), and didn't see any difference. The same dust spots looked the same to me on both. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't look at this too closely though, and this was quite a while ago. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
- Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions Hi Sorry, for asking pre-discussed topic. Once I get following doubts cleared, I thinksmile I will be ready to take on the scanning world. I am using Minolta Dimage II, VueScan. Scanner has 12bit/channel output I am using Adobe Photo 6.0. This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following will be good. a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. Given your reason for not wanting to store RAW scans below, I see no reason to 'store' 48 bit files. I suggest you output 48 bit files from Vuescan and do color correction in Photoshop, then reduce to 8 bit per channel for storage. Most subsequent editing and output will require 8 bit per channel files anyway. This is about WorkFlow: I use Win2000. Reason for using BruceRGB is its recommended in Real World of Photoshop. Let me know if its a good choice. I think Bruce believes BruceRGB has been overcome by time and improvements in scanners and scanning. AdobeRGB has become a little more the standard, but this is a highly subjective decision. I am an amature; At present out-put device is going to be desk-top and I am not going to print the images in near future. My negatives have lot of scratches/dust, so I have to scan them again using another scanner which has ICE. So I do not want to store the RAW scan. You really ought to spend some time learning technics to edit scratches/dust in Photoshop. Digital ICE is not necessarly the only option. Such skills are still good to develope. a) Scan using BruceRGB in VS, Copy to CD1. This I can use for re-editing provided my editing skills improove. b) Edit in BruceRGB using Adobe PS. Copy the ouput to CD2. c) Convert from BruceRGB to sRGB. And convert from TIFF to JPG and store in CD3. Why do CD3 at all? You could always use the images on CD2 and convert for final output. The only advantage I see in CD3 is added redundency. Please let me know your opinion about my workflow. Thanks Ramesh Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
I guess my take is that the adding of dust is just a corollary to having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that there is dust or damage to the film... Isaac Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and BW without artifacting and time spent retouching? This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it certainly isn't the scanner's fault if there is dust on film, there is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can give a crunchy quality to the tonal structure some would not want. Some prefer the extra punch of this light. I have always preferred the Omega D5-XL's diffused source... oh wait a minute, what were we talking about?:-) But all of these tonal and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and BW! There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) Aha! A question that I can't make a smart alec response to... er, um... sorry...:-) Isaac Dave
RE: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
Ramesh writes ... ... This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. ... a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. See below ... This is about WorkFlow: I use Win2000. Reason for using BruceRGB is its recommended in Real World of Photoshop. Let me know if its a good choice. RWPS for version 6 would imply differently, but which Bruce chooses to use is dependent on the scanner. He implies he developed BruceRGB in the context of poor scanners, but has since switched to AdobeRGB with newer scanners. If the scan needed a severe adjustment, he would claim BruceRGB is the better 8bit editing space. If the scan is closer to right on ... his preference is AdobeRGB. In the context of PS v.6, I'd suggest you buy his most recent version of RWPS ... there is a lot of good information about how Adobe finally got Photoshop right. In the meantime, you can visit is online articles at: http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html specifically ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html ... a) Scan using BruceRGB in VS, Copy to CD1. This I can use for re-editing provided my editing skills improove. b) Edit in BruceRGB using Adobe PS. Copy the ouput to CD2. c) Convert from BruceRGB to sRGB. And convert from TIFF to JPG and store in CD3. My own preference is to assume I do NOT want to scan the film again, and I therefore scan full-res and to a 64bit Vuescan TIFF (includes IR). My preference for a highbit color space happens to be EktaspaceRGB, but that is a subjective preference ... objectively you should scan highbits into a wide gamut (PhotoproRGB, EktaspaceRGB, Adobe Wide ... Photopro and Ektaspace being the better editing spaces). My other preference is to eventually end up in AdobeRGB and I prefer to keep all images in the same area and archived to the same CD. my US$0.02 ... shAf
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner owners are on this list. The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older scanners? All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust, dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as possible. ;-) When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used. Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear. When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners. The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent scanner with a non-LED light source. So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is better or worse than yours. I do know that yours is more expensive. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: Dave wrote: Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac
RE: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan
Paul If you know what you are doing when you are scanning a negative or positive film Silverfast is IMO superior to all other scanner software on the market today..No other software have all the features and parameters as Silverfast have (general color handling, specific color handling, white, gray ,and black point. curves , histogram and much much more. I can measure up the film in Silverfast and get scanning results who are much better in all aspects than a calculating software. It all depends on your own skills when you are working with Silverfast. VueScan is a excellent software but Silverfast is a scanning tool. If someone really will learn how to scan a film my suggestion is use Silverfast and VueScan For easy scan-VueScan. For complex scan-Silverfast. Its takes many many hours of training to be a good scanner operator but it worth it. Its like in the darkroom- the pleasure of knowing what Im doing. Mikael Risedal Photoghrapher Lund Sweden From: Paul Chefurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:56:38 -0700 Silverfast is at http://www.silverfast.com - the price is $307 USD Vuscan is a http://www.hamrick.com - the price is $40 which includes Vueprint as well. I've been using Vuescan for a over a year now. I bought Silverfast 5 for my Polaroid SS4000 (before it was bundled) and consider it to be the biggest waste of money in my digital darkroom experience. Not kidding. High bit scans in Vuescan and final corrections in PS6 for me are faster and better than anything Silverfast can offer. I've downloaded and tried NikonScan 3.1 and it doesn't produce any better images than 3.0, and IMO the interface still sucks. Vuescan is still faster and better, amd I even prefer the interface. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: Ray Amos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan Friends, I have and love the new Nikon LS4000 scanner. According to some on this usergroup and others I know, the software that comes with the scanner is inferior. Some say Silverfast, some say Vuscan. Where do you get these software packages and how much do they cost? Which is better? What will they do that NikonScan 3.1 won't do? Thanks. Ray Amos _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1 here june 7
does the nikon scan 3.1 work with ls-1000. thanks joanna
Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan
Counterpoint - everything you are doing in Silverfast I can do much better in PhotoShop or PhotoPaint. All I want from the scan is to capture all the details in it - Vuescan will do this for me very nicely and very easily. If I need to further adjust white and black points, detail in highlights and/or shadows, or colors, I have more tools available in PhotoShop/Paint and all of the pixels I need are there from the initial scan. Its like in the darkroom - the pleasure of knowing what I'm doing. I do the same in PhotoPaint as you do in Silverfast but I can see what I am doing better. Maris - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:38 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan | Paul | If you know what you are doing when you are scanning a negative or positive | film Silverfast is IMO superior to all other scanner software on the | market today..No other software have all the | features and parameters as Silverfast have (general color handling, | specific color handling, white, gray ,and black point. curves , histogram | and much much more. I can measure up the film in Silverfast and get | scanning results who are much better in all aspects than a calculating | software. It all depends on your own skills when you are working with | Silverfast. VueScan is a excellent software but Silverfast is a scanning | tool. | If someone really will learn how to scan a film my suggestion is use | Silverfast and VueScan | For easy scan-VueScan. For complex scan-Silverfast. | Its takes many many hours of training to be a good scanner operator but it | worth it. Its like in the darkroom- the pleasure of knowing what Im doing. | Mikael Risedal | Photoghrapher | Lund Sweden | | From: Paul Chefurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan | Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:56:38 -0700 | | Silverfast is at http://www.silverfast.com - the price is $307 USD | Vuscan is a http://www.hamrick.com - the price is $40 which includes | Vueprint as well. | | I've been using Vuescan for a over a year now. I bought Silverfast 5 for | my Polaroid SS4000 (before it was bundled) and consider it to be the | biggest waste of money in my digital darkroom experience. Not kidding. | High bit scans in Vuescan and final corrections in PS6 for me are faster | and better than anything Silverfast can offer. | | I've downloaded and tried NikonScan 3.1 and it doesn't produce any better | images than 3.0, and IMO the interface still sucks. Vuescan is still | faster and better, amd I even prefer the interface. | | Paul Chefurka | | -Original Message- | From: Ray Amos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:54 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2 - Vuescan | | | Friends, | | I have and love the new Nikon LS4000 scanner. According to some on this | usergroup and others I know, the software that comes with the scanner is | inferior. Some say Silverfast, some say Vuscan. Where do you get these | software packages and how much do they cost? Which is better? What | will they do that NikonScan 3.1 won't do? Thanks. | | Ray Amos | | | _ | Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. | |
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast. Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service. Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal option like FARE or ICE would make a significant difference, since, according to what I've read, the SprintScan scans/read less dust, scratches, etc. than the Nikon systems. Chris - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer products and they wind up not being all that much better. the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution. possibly this may be a better combination anyway. i am a new to this film scanner business and hope more people respond with their opinions. thanks jim Arthur Entlich wrote: AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The improvement in sharpness going from the Epson Filmscan 2400dpi scanner to the Nikon LS30 2700dpi scanner was astonishing. I wonder if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the image? Rob
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The whole Nikon scanners accentuate dust thing is just FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. Regards, Ed Hamrick I find this an interesting statement. Maybe Nikon owners are more particulatetophobic? I hardly ever hear from SS4000 owners complaining bitterly about spotting or wishing they had purchased a Nikon for dICE. In fact, several have mused publicly about Nikon's owners comments about the absolute need for dICE on the Nikons. To the point that resolution comparisons are made between the SS4000 scan (without dICE, since it isn't an option) and the Nikon scan WITH dICE as a fair base point. I have no idea how much an IR channel and light source plus the ASF license add to the cost, but I would think Polaroid would have been browbeaten into providing dICE had it been such a problem without it. I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow the whistle. Everything part of my intuition say the Nikon must have more surface defect emphasis without dICE than the others. I don't have either scanner to work from, but I have read thousands of postings and this is certainly the impression I am left with even discounting company reps professional bias. I'd love to hear from others who have experience with either or (even better) both scanners and who doesn't have an ongoing professional relationship with either or both manufacturers. Art
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Rob Geraghty wrote: Nick Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my order for the Epson 1280. Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290 elsewhere? Rob Oh gawd, Epson and their numbering system! I think I made an error in my previous comments about the 1280... Originally the first digit on the 3 digit number and first two digits on the 4 digit numbers indicated the class of printer and carriage size. 200, II: 720 dpi 2 carts 300: 720 dpi integrated black and color cart 400, 440: 720 (2 carts) 4 color 500: 720 dpi 4 color 600, 640, 660: 1440 dpi 4 color 700: 1440 6 color photo 800, 850: 1440 business class 4 color 900: 1440 speed class 4 color 1160: 1440 11+ inch wide 4 color 1200: 1440 11+ inch wide 6 color 1500, 1520: wide carriage 4 color 3000: 1440 wider carriage 4 color Then there are the 2000p (pigmented 6 color 12 wide) The 5000 (proofer dye) and 5500 (proofer pigmented) The 7000 24 dye and 7500 24 pigmented The 9000 ?? dye and 9500 ?? pigmented But over time things have become completely ridiculous; The 740, 750, 760 are 4 color (1440 dpi) The 780, 880 and 980 which are 2880 dpi 4 color (780 is new to me, so I'm jumping to conclusions here) The 777 was a 4 color printer at 1440. The 1280 (which I have yet to see) is probably an upgrade to the 1200. (in which case, I made an error in an earlier posting as I indicated the 1280 as an upgrade to the 1270. I believe the 1290 is the upgrade to the 1270, and the 1280 is likely an upgrade to the 1200 at 2880 dpi) I think I also saw a 1180, which would be a 2880 dpi upgrade to the 1160 (4 color 11+ inch carriage). The 870 and 1270 are 6 color fade resistant chipped cart, and I think the 890 and 1290 are the upgrades to them. I don't know what they did to upgrade them. The numbering system was further messed up by some method of distinguishing between the chipped and unchipped carts. Even Epson customer service has a hard time keeping up these days. I suggest you try Epson's website at www.epson.com The North American one (at least used to) have all the current printers with description. I give up! Art At one point the odd tens place meant a 6 color printer (750, 870, 1270, etc) Then they came out with the 670 and 777, so that no longer complied. Then the 70 and 80 and 90 was supposed to indicate the chipped cart. But the 900 and 980 use the same cart.
Re: filmscanners: Ghosting on the Acer 2740S
The fact that it occurs on multi-pass scans and not otherwise, seems to suggest an alignment problem. The scanner might not be able to maintain perfect alignment with multiple passes. Since I do not know if these scanners were designed for multi-pass I can't comment whether this is considered a defect or not. However, the 2740S has to do at least two scans when it does dICE, because the IR scan is done separately from the visible light scan, so it should hold alignment at least for the two. I'm not sure the best way to determine if it is doing so, however, other than perhaps, placing both the IR and visible scan into photoshop and comparing channels. Art Lynn Allen wrote: This sounds suspiciously like the ghosting that another member was getting on astronomy pictures with a different scanner. The jury's still out on what is/was causing it. I can't get my Acer 2027S to do this, although it will produce *other* curious aberations. Of course, I don't have IR, either. Best regards--LRA -- Original message: In a message dated 5/29/2001 12:22:18 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Running my new 2740S with the latest VueScan, when I try multiple passes or the extra-long IR scan, I see a ghost image displaced slight upwards. I have no trouble on single scans. Is this something wrong with the Acer, the software, or am I doing something stupid? I haven't checked yet with Acer. Thanks. Matt Prastein . There's no such thing as free lunch. Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave King wrote: Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and BW without artifacting and time spent retouching? This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it certainly isn't the scanner's fault if there is dust on film, there is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can give a crunchy quality to the tonal structure some would not want. Some prefer the extra punch of this light. But all of these tonal and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and BW! There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) Dave To bring this into a slightly different realm... Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering and other human aspects of imprecise driving without creating any real danger. Then, on the other hand you had a choice of a car that had hardly any vibration in the steering and tended to handle somewhat better on the road as long as you used perfect driving habits, but if you over steered, for instance -(hey, your fault, right?) it skidded right off the road. Which would you prefer to drive? Being human, I'll take car number 1, thanks. Art
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following will be good. a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. My approach to this is: Scan in 36 bit, and capture as 48 bit scan. Work in Photoshop in any aspect that works in 48 bit, and when all those aspects are adjusted, then convert to 24 bit. Working in 48 bit provides extra breathing space in your ability to get good adjustments, but it is not without other problems. Like, it requires a lot more memory, the processes are slowed down due to the extra number crunching necessary, and storage at that bit depth is painfully large. The main things I have found that benefit from the full bit depth are levels and curves, contrast and brightness and hue/color balance adjustment. For amateur use, all of this might be fairly moot, but you need to try both and see which you find acceptable. Art
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
I find it a good idea to scan into a 48 bit file, spot with the cloning tool, crop any border, and then archive. That doesn't commit to any approach to the image but means that you never have to do the drudgery of spotting again. In important cases I often save all the changes in order (not the stages of the files themselves but using the save-levels, save-curve (etc.) commands, along with any associated selections), doing as much as possible in 48 bit, then converting to 24 bit for any local adjustments and saving. This makes it possible to go back to any point and make adjustments and then to proceed with the following commands, but keeps the total disk space used for an image not much bigger than the initial and final image. Of course if scanners improve greatly I'll want to rescan the important images anyway despite the archived files. . . John M. Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following will be good. a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits.
