re[2]: filmscanners: Vuescan too blue
I am always typing faster than I am thinking. I am scanning almost all negs, the latest roll is Kodak Royal 400. I did play with various film base settings, some have distinctly different casts than others, but non I played with were better than generic. Ed has explained this tries to reproduce the scene as it appeared to us, and the film settings try to reproduce it as the film saw the scene. Two design goals of PhotoCD. I often move blue down substantially, and I think this odd. For settings I am normally a black point of .1 white of .1 gamma around 1.2 brightness 1.0 Autolevels used to give the best color, but now it's white balance since about 7.1. The last few weeks I have been having to adjust my vuescan created images from my Scanwit by what I think is an extreme amount. Usually I move red up 7 points around 150, blue down around 20 points. Are we talking about slides or negatives? Let's suppose we are discussing slides... When scanning Fuji slides (100ASA) with my ScanWit I choose under the Color tab for Slide vendor Generic Most of the scans have the right colour for me. When I choose Slide vendor Kodak, Ektachrome, the colours I get are looking wrong to me... But with Generic they look blue compared to Kodak. Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan too blue
Rob Wrote: AFAIK Vuescan's film type settings are limited by the profiles released for PhotoCD. So if there's no PhotoCD profile for Superia, there's none in Vuescan. The profile for Reala should be very close - they use the same emulsion technology. Thanks. Yes, the Reala 100(Japan) gives what I think is the most accurate colour with Superia. Just wondered if that was the best I could do. Colin Maddock
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:11:27 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: DMax is of no value what so ever unless there is a DMin associated with it (and vice versa). Hmm, I don't want to sound like a tiresome pedant who gets all worked up over precise use of language, but (to be tiresomely pedantic:) my point was that DMax *does* have a particular meaning in photography and it ain't 'dynamic range'. It is an absolute value of opacity - a densitometric measurement relative only to the illuminant intensity unimpeded by film. This does matter, and is meaningful by itself, even within scanning. A scanner may not be able to cope, say, with a DMax of 4 although it can with a DMax of 3 (because it cannot increase illuminant intensity or integration time sufficiently). This is a separate parameter, distinct from Dmin or the dynamic range, aka Optical Density Range/ODR (difference between DMax and DMin). Most scanners have fixed illuminant intensity, but if longer integration time is required, noise will increase. Performance with a target DMax 4.0 - DMin 1.0 ODR=3.0 is certain to be worse than with DMax 3.0 - DMin 0.0 ODR=3.0. Although on the face of it you could describe the dynamic range as 3.0 in both cases, in the first you might lose a whole lot of shadow detail in extra noise. The extent to which this matters depends on the scanner and film base fog level, of course. But most do present CCD noise as a significant problem even with films with a low DMin. Typically, DMin is assumed to be 0 when DMax is used by it self. Yes, I know, but it's a misuse of terms really, and one which might make specs look better than they are. DMin never is 0 in real life, and pretending it is conveniently minimises the noise issues which arise with real film. An exaggerated dynamic range falls out of this simplification, to the benefit of marketing rather than accurate description, as far as I can see. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: 17 July 2001 23:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al Tony, What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2 rated 400 - 50 ASA. The grain aliasing improves down to 100 ASA but so does the negative density. Densities for Zone I/V/VII were as follows : 400 - 0.66/0.75/1.20 200 - 0.15/0.93/1.44 100 - 0.24/1.11/1.44 50 - 0.51/1.28/1.53 The 200 ASA test images scanned well with Vuescan both with the XP2 setting and RGB generic negative setting. The latter by the way gave a green tone negative with most 'grain' in the red and blue channels. Steve Chambers (UK) Yup, it is amazing film, and I have had experienced Art Eds query whether shots done on 35mm T400CN were medium format. Vuesmart's BW setting for 400CN works well. Or you can scan at 16bit RGB and convert to grayscale later in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: OT, very: was:re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
It should have read, and we like to incorporate it into our machines. And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming makes assumption about which direction to move, or in stability systems in lenses, where the programing makes assumptions about the next move without sufficient input to know, and without consideration of all potential options. Some auto exposure systems also use F.L. Some robots incorporate F.L. again, when manipulating physical things spatially. I'm sure there are many other examples, that don't come to mind right now. Art Most autofocus systems use it, Austin Franklin wrote: Art wrote: We require fuzzy logic, and we incorporate it into our machines What machines, do you believe, has fuzzy logic incorporated into them?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:40:02 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Nikon is having to deal with me. I own a lot of their stuff, and it has and does continue to breakdown (after it was serviced by them, BTW). Ah, now I understand : legitimate user feedback, therefore :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth. So did that:) So did this:) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case! Welcome, fellow sceptic! :-) This is the only possible rational explanation for many of the specs you see quoted by mfrs... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
At 09:37 PM 7/17/01 -0700, Art wrote: From my read on this, I don't give a rat's ass about your observations on this topic, Art. I can browse the internet as well as the next Tom, Dick or Harry, and don't need your help to form my opinions on such matters. Have you owned a Nikon scanner? Have you ever used one? Have you ever scanned one of your images in a Nikon scanner? Have you personally dealt with Nikon technical support in any manner, ever? their service is at least equally as bad, while costing more, as do their scanners. Further, they tend to maintain an arrogant attitude about consumer complaints when the repairs are not up to standard. Again: how does Nikon compare to other brands, offering similar products, on any of these matters? THAT is the question. Not Art Entlich's unfounded opinions, based on his tea-leaf interpretation of internet posts. If you think my comment is inaccurate, feel free to spend your time proving otherwise, and report back to us. Bullsh*t, Art. You made one of your many unfounded, accusatory, broad-brush statements about Brand X. It's clear that you haven't any facts to back up your accusations, vis-a-vis Nikon's record, as compared to any other brand. It's not my job to refute your unfounded statements. You made the statement; YOU provide the facts to back them up. Can't cite facts? The give it up. Find something else to talk about. rafe b.
RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots. RE: the pink cast on prints, it was my belief as well that the lab simply got lazy or didn't pay attention when they printed the negs. It was a Kodak lab (I used Kodak processing mailers) and I intend to call and bitch at them for making what must have been a mistake simply out of negligence. No doubt they just ran everything through a machine and, since it's c41 processing, just let the machine print on whatever is their stock color paper. So much for trying to save a few pennies on processing... The negs seem perfectly fine - my scans don't have a trace of pink (even using a generic color negative setting for film type). I haven't played with them a great deal but grain seems minimal, as the literature promises. Yup, it is amazing film, and I have had experienced Art Eds query whether shots done on 35mm T400CN were medium format. Vuesmart's BW setting for 400CN works well. Or you can scan at 16bit RGB and convert to grayscale later in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
They can't really think I wanted that, can they? They may not have a choice. I'd guess that most minilabs would only have colour paper, and it's just not possible to get true greyscale on colour paper. Well, we'll see. I finally got hold of a phone number for the Kodak lab. After I call the I'll post their response. Since this was the Kodak lab used by all the Kodak print mailers, I would hope it's not a mini-lab but probaly it's fully automated. Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf
filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough, banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wife were not having a baby, I would bag the whole thing an get an Imacon. Parting with that kind of $ right now just does not feel right however. What to do, what to do... Lawrence * This weeks critique image is now available * at http://www.lwsphoto.com Click on the * 'Critique' button.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case! Yeah, I've seen that too. That is marketing fluff, and definitely is misleading. The number of bits is really only a limiting factor (assuming they are used to represent only integer density ratio values, or at least defined in some sense). You could have a 20 bit A/D and a system performance of 2. There was a good discussion about standardizing this spec on the scanner newsgroup a while ago. It was speculated that one of the problems seemed to be agreeing on a test. This is where Kodak or someone should take the lead and just define a decent test and put it out in the public for others to use.
RE: OT, very: was:re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
It should have read, and we like to incorporate it into our machines. And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming makes assumption about which direction to move, or in stability systems in lenses, where the programming makes assumptions about the next move without sufficient input to know, and without consideration of all potential options. Some auto exposure systems also use F.L. Some robots incorporate F.L. again, when manipulating physical things spatially. I'm sure there are many other examples, that don't come to mind right now. Some of what you describe, I'd say, is heuristics as well. My understanding is fuzzy logic is more used in a static environment, and uses a set of rules, and isn't predictive, but heuristics is predictive. Here's a decent description of fuzzy logic: http://www.battelle.org/cogsys/fuzzy.htm To keep it on topic ;-) I don't know how fuzzy logic could really be incorporated into the scanning process...in the scanner focusing?...but it's a pretty easy task, since it's a fixed scanner point, and doesn't need to be adaptive. Scanning is pretty deterministic, so I don't believe it would benefit from any AI technologies...though I believe GF claims to use AI in their algorithms, but that isn't really in the scanning of the images though.
Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
Hi! My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough, banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wife were Could You publish any image on your site with visible banding? I'm very curious how it looks like. -- Marcin M. Nagraba e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Znudzilo Ci sie logo w komorce? Wgraj nowe [ http://komorki.onet.pl/dodatki.html ]
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
Jeff.. You might try the BULBMAN @ 1-800-648-1163..I've had excellent luck with them in the past on other types of bulb replacements.. Eddie Wiseman - Original Message - From: Jeff Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:04 AM Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circuit board.
Re: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
Steven Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I've been rating mine at EI250. The lack of grain is astounding. Rob
filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circuit board.
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. I would be curious what the replacement cost is, if you would be so kind to post it...
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
I can and will! Lawrence Could You publish any image on your site with visible banding? I'm very curious how it looks like. -- Marcin M. Nagraba e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Znudzilo Ci sie logo w komorce? Wgraj nowe [ http://komorki.onet.pl/dodatki.html ]
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no film, nothing in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector. IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*), it would be more honest to use blank film for this test. The difference in light transmission might be miniscule, but sensitive CCDs might also be able to record it. Most media have a small amount of filtering properties. I don't believe film base opacity is standardized...so different films would yield different DMin.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
DMax *does* have a particular meaning in photography and it ain't 'dynamic range'. It is an absolute value of opacity - a densitometric measurement relative only to the illuminant intensity unimpeded by film. Yes, film and paper can be measured by a calibrated densitometer, but what you are calling an absolute number is really relative. It has to be, all density values are relative to something, it's just that through calibration, the relationship is standardized. This is really different than scanner dynamic range, which is not based on any standardized point, it is relative only unto it self. This is a separate parameter , distinct from Dmin or the dynamic range, aka Optical Density Range/ODR (difference between DMax and DMin). Why isn't that the same as dynamic range, if they both are DMax - DMin? If ODR was stated as DMax AND DMin (not added, but both parameters stated) that would be meaningful. I understand your point that a dynamic range of 3 may have other parameters of interest associated with it, as in when you are scanning 1-4 vs 0-3, such as noise. The dynamic range decreases when noise increases, so I don't know that I completely agree that the dynamic range ends up being the same for each... There certainly are a lot of characterizations I, for one, would like to see able to be characterized for film scanners. That's a whole other issue though.
RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
Norman wrote: I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots. I once shot a roll 4 full stops underexposed, trying to capture the effects of a certain safety light we were marketing. The film came back perfectly exposed, warts and all, which *wasn't* exactly what I was shooting for. :-) Best regards--LRA From: Norman Unsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:25:20 -0400 I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots. RE: the pink cast on prints, it was my belief as well that the lab simply got lazy or didn't pay attention when they printed the negs. It was a Kodak lab (I used Kodak processing mailers) and I intend to call and bitch at them for making what must have been a mistake simply out of negligence. No doubt they just ran everything through a machine and, since it's c41 processing, just let the machine print on whatever is their stock color paper. So much for trying to save a few pennies on processing... The negs seem perfectly fine - my scans don't have a trace of pink (even using a generic color negative setting for film type). I haven't played with them a great deal but grain seems minimal, as the literature promises. Yup, it is amazing film, and I have had experienced Art Eds query whether shots done on 35mm T400CN were medium format. Vuesmart's BW setting for 400CN works well. Or you can scan at 16bit RGB and convert to grayscale later in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
Hi, Tony-- Turns out we were both trying to throw water on a grass fire, so to speak. I've made apologies all round, and apologize to you, as well. :-) Best regards--Lynn Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source... Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:19 +0100 (BST) On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth. So did that:) So did this:) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Here's an example of the banding. http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm It is EXACTLY the same as my previous 8000 had done. Lawrence
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
**In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case! Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to follow suit. How many people look beyond the ad copy when comparing products? Scan time? Oh, we didn't include focus or saving the file or... Resolution? This was easy enough to check that most manufacturers no longer highlight interpolated resolution. But some still report what the stepper motor will resolve or neglect (except in the fine print) to mention that the resolution is only over 35 mm, not the full 4 x 5 inches. Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is internally only? And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC? Or that the system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC? Almost any other spec you can think of. How to lie with statistics. Or ad copy.
RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:37:35 +0100 Steven Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2 rated 400 - 50 ASA. ISO400 works well for me, although I'll increase it a bit if shadow detail is the priority. I don't much like what happens with reduced ISO ratings on T400CN or XP2 - although 'grain' gets finer, the tonality suffers from my PoV, especially becoming very flat in the highlights. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is internally only? And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC? Or that the system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC? That's an interesting issue. A design can use a 12 bit ADC, and take multiple readings, with different ranges, and integrate the readings to give the same results as would be achieved from using a higher bit ADC.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting. Paul Wilson -Original Message- From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Here's an example of the banding. http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm It is EXACTLY the same as my previous 8000 had done. Lawrence
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's not my job to refute your unfounded statements. You made the statement; YOU provide the facts to back them up. Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some 'previous' :- (i)the unfortunate history of malfunctioning hoppers, originally with the LS1000, then again with the LS2000 - the now-defunct Nikontech forum used to be filled with complaints, hints about bodges using plastic or card shim, and demands that Nikon do something (which they never did). It's only fair to say that many people had no problems though. (ii)broken colour management in Nikonscan (LS2000 generation) which they took, what? 2 years to fix? (iii)the jaggies issue in LS30's, which seemed to be met only with corporate denial and repairs which mostly failed to fix anything (implausible once Ed Hamrick had fixed it in software :) (iv)some historical calamity regarding franchised repairs of Nikon cameras, at least in some territories. UK owners will remember. Once Nikon took repairs back in house, things were much better. (v)various other design disasters like the MD11 motor drive (jammed often), questionable progress with the F3 and F4 which allowed Canon EOS to race ahead, and the diversification into 'low end' cameras and lenses which diluted the brand values Whether this concerns anyone is a matter for them, I think. I'm happy for factual information, positive or negative, to appear on this list. Obviously it will form part of peoples' buying decisions, and has to be weighed against Nikon's substantial reputation WRT photo kit, including scanners. I'm less happy about axe-grinding, though I do understand that when people spend substantial amounts of money they feel angry or pleased, depending on the outcome. Nevertheless, when it works out that one person is pleased by their choice, and another feels aggrieved by theirs, it shouldn't result in an argument, surely? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:53:03 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough, banding galore. Do you think this is just showing banding which is happening generally but hard to see, or is it just in this area? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
Tony, I think it is happening everywhere but is most obvious in the blue regions. Lawrence Do you think this is just showing banding which is happening generally but hard to see, or is it just in this area? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Archives?
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... It's really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120? Lawrence That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting. Paul Wilson
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the firstone :-(
I have checked and it is mostly in the blue channel. I notified tech support of this but they continue to pretend that my problems are not widespread. Bullsh*t... Lawrence You should check your individual channels in PS (make sure you have them set to display in grayscale in the preferences). It would be interesting to see if the banding is isolated on one channel. If it is isolated in the blue channel, you might be able to gaussian blur that one channel slightly, and not see too much effect. It's actually a lame solution, and only meant to be used in desperation, but... Todd
RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
Lynn, Actually we probably both had the same problem - if you don't specify with the lab their machine will automatically print each exposure as close to the 'right' print they can. I've taken to stipulating that they use no compensation on any prints. When I got my most recent camera (Nikon N80) I took it out to test drive all the bells and whistles, including exposure and flash compensation. I hadn't asked them to print all the prints without compensation and when I got the prints back they all looked the same exposure-wise. Not much of a test and not very clever on my part. Norman Norman wrote: I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots. I once shot a roll 4 full stops underexposed, trying to capture the effects of a certain safety light we were marketing. The film came back perfectly exposed, warts and all, which *wasn't* exactly what I was shooting for. :-) Best regards--LRA From: Norman Unsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:25:20 -0400 I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots. RE: the pink cast on prints, it was my belief as well that the lab simply got lazy or didn't pay attention when they printed the negs. It was a Kodak lab (I used Kodak processing mailers) and I intend to call and bitch at them for making what must have been a mistake simply out of negligence. No doubt they just ran everything through a machine and, since it's c41 processing, just let the machine print on whatever is their stock color paper. So much for trying to save a few pennies on processing... The negs seem perfectly fine - my scans don't have a trace of pink (even using a generic color negative setting for film type). I haven't played with them a great deal but grain seems minimal, as the literature promises. Yup, it is amazing film, and I have had experienced Art Eds query whether shots done on 35mm T400CN were medium format. Vuesmart's BW setting for 400CN works well. Or you can scan at 16bit RGB and convert to grayscale later in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote: Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable value. Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean? -- Terry Carroll | Denied. Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001) Modell delendus est |
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Actually, I sent it back. Mainly because I decided that Digital ICE was well worth it for me. The SS120 did not have any banding like that but I felt it was also not quite as sharp as the Nikon. Paul Wilson -Original Message-From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 1:56 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... It's really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120? Lawrence That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting. Paul Wilson
RE: filmscanners: Archives?
Here's archive the url http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Norman Unsworth Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?: Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a default scan (ROC/GEM off) so that the black point ends-up at around 18-25, depending on film, it seems. I'm guessing that NS is just giving you the DMin, un-adjusted. Seems like a faulty approach if you ask me. Especially as NS insists on clipping the white point at the slightest excuse. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: 18 July 2001 15:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source... Julian wrote: ...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no film, nothing in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector. IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*), it would be more honest to use blank film for this test. The difference in light transmission might be miniscule, but sensitive CCDs might also be able to record it. Most media have a small amount of filtering properties. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
I bought my first scanner, the Primefilm 1800, cos it is cheap (£120). And the LS40 because it is the cheapest with ICE-cubed (I'm now using all 3 parts of it, and I'm doing almost no editing in PS, except for cropping and basic exposure curves). I've always thought of myself as relatively immune to marketing... Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean Sent: 18 July 2001 18:11 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source... **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case! Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to follow suit. How many people look beyond the ad copy when comparing products? Scan time? Oh, we didn't include focus or saving the file or... Resolution? This was easy enough to check that most manufacturers no longer highlight interpolated resolution. But some still report what the stepper motor will resolve or neglect (except in the fine print) to mention that the resolution is only over 35 mm, not the full 4 x 5 inches. Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is internally only? And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC? Or that the system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC? Almost any other spec you can think of. How to lie with statistics. Or ad copy.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...It's really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120? Lawrence That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting. Paul Wilson The banding affects the three color channels in differing degrees. It generally won't be seen in areas of fine detail, so it most often is seen in skies. On some images, the noise in the blue channel can mask the banding (when viewed on-screen.) Use the channels tool to view the individual channels one at a time. I think there's sufficient evidence now (4 or 5 separate instances, from 3 or 4 users that I know) to indicated that this is a design flaw, or maybe a production run with a faulty component (most likely the CCD itself.) Have you tried checking Super Fine Scan? That should eliminate the banding. I'd be most curious to know if that works. I'd be more than happy to join forces with other 8000 users to help resolve this problem, if it comes to confronting Nikon's tech support. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote: Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable value. Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean? On this list, it means medium-format. Elsewhere, it might mean something entirely different g rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's not my job to refute your unfounded statements. You made the statement; YOU provide the facts to back them up. Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some 'previous' :- snip Sorry, Tony, but I'm afraid you missed my point. The information is real, I'm sure, but not quite what I was asking for. I had a specific question directed at Art; which he did not answer. Anyone who's been reading this list knows that Nikon scanners have problems. As do scanners from any number of other vendors. The question was, how does Nikon rate against its competitors, in these matters (service, reliability, basic functionality, etc.) Art insinuates, repeatedly, that Nikon is unique in supplying faulty gear and rotten service. That is simply untrue. As I recall, Art himself recently took delivery of a new Minolta scanner that was unfit for service. Shall we recite the litany of scanner flaws, and scanner-service horror shows described on this list, over the years? Can you honestly say that any one brand is more or less prone to reliability or service headaches than the others? And if so, I'd sure like to see the basis for your judgement, whatever it may be. Quite frankly, a study of this sort would require resources (and objectivity) that probably can't be found on this list. FWIW, my purchase of a Nikon scanner this time around was a rather direct consequence of lousy service with some other brand, and the experience of a close friend who also bought a scanner of that same other brand. I have no issues with Lawrence Smith reporting problems with banding on his (Nikon) scanner. That's real information, quite unlike what we get from Art on this topic. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Seems pretty slight to me - but I've already surmised that I am not in the same league of perfectionism as everyone else round here (hey, I own an LS40 - and my most expensive camera component ever (SLR body, lens, flash, etc) is my Canon PS). What magnification are we looking at in the zoom? Somebody was talking about making the 8000 slow down to use only one row of CCD sensors at a time, instead of three (have I got the right scanner?) so it would seem that if you could turn on that option, you might get a preferable result. The banding you're getting looks, to me, just like the effect I get out of my band-finding technique, described below, except on a much much much smaller scale. I guess I shouldn't suggest you turn on GEM! Though I suspect it will hide the banding. (I really like GEM.) I have found a good technique for banding discovery (well I think it is cool, but it doesn't apply to this scenario). If you scan an image twice and then subtract one from the other and then compress the white point down to about 8-20-ish, you should see banding (well I do with the LS40). On a fairly large scale! I think it gives some insight into the banding you are finding, and if my hunch is correct, making the 8000 scan with only a single row of CCD sensors will make the problem go away - or at least ameliorate it. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith Sent: 18 July 2001 17:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Here's an example of the banding. http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm It is EXACTLY the same as my previous 8000 had done. Lawrence
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
MF = Medium Format (120 roll film sizes, typically) Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jawed Ashraf wrote: May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?: Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a default scan (ROC/GEM off) so that the black point ends-up at around 18-25, depending on film, it seems. I'm guessing that NS is just giving you the DMin, un-adjusted. Seems like a faulty approach if you ask me. Especially as NS insists on clipping the white point at the slightest excuse. I have seen both of these effects on my 8000, with NS 3.1 The black-point effect is a minor annoyance, IMHO. Maybe Nikon set things that way because of the common perception that Nikon scanners have poor shadow detail. In any case, it's easy enough to deal with, either in NS or later n Photoshop. The white-point clipping is much more subtle. But yeah, you wonder why the behavior isn't symmetrical at the two ends of the histogram. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... I'm not sure when I'll be receiving my new 8000. It's on backorder and I got a price of $2800, so I'm willing to wait. However, I'll be trying the same slides that caused banding in the first place and I'll report as soon as I can. I think a petition of sorts as Rafe suggests could be helpful. One thing to realize, I didn't always get banding with my previous 8000. If I scanned a particular slide one day, I'd see banding. If I did the same one the next day, I wouldn't and both examples were with out Super Fine CCD mode checked. Super Fine CCD mode always seemed to fix the problem (at the expense of 3x scan time). I heard about the Polaroid SS120 last October so I held off buying a scanner. Then, I heard about the Nikon and that it had Digital ICE, so I waited for that. Now Polaroid's health is questionable (I want a $2600 unsupported product) and most of the Nikons are defective and I'm still waiting. This sucks. Paul Wilson -Original Message- From: Raphael Bustin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...It's really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120? Lawrence That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting. Paul Wilson The banding affects the three color channels in differing degrees. It generally won't be seen in areas of fine detail, so it most often is seen in skies. On some images, the noise in the blue channel can mask the banding (when viewed on-screen.) Use the channels tool to view the individual channels one at a time. I think there's sufficient evidence now (4 or 5 separate instances, from 3 or 4 users that I know) to indicated that this is a design flaw, or maybe a production run with a faulty component (most likely the CCD itself.) Have you tried checking Super Fine Scan? That should eliminate the banding. I'd be most curious to know if that works. I'd be more than happy to join forces with other 8000 users to help resolve this problem, if it comes to confronting Nikon's tech support. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: LS-30 and Windows 2000
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: Kerry Thompson wrote I recently installed a LS-30 on a new Win 2000 professional system. The computer recognizes the scanner at startup but does not seem to install a driver for it. Each startup the computer again recognizes the scanner and begins the new hardware wizard. Is there a Win 2000 compatibility problem? The scanner seems to work ok with either Vuescan or Nikonscan 3.1 which I downloaded from the web. My scsi card is an Adaptec 2903b. Kerry: I had a similar experience with LS-30 and Windows 2000. All necessary software, drivers, etc. were installed, but Windows 2000 always ran the 'new hardware' wizard at startup -- I could just cancel the wizard and use the scanner without problems. I did fix it, so I don't see the wizard on startup any more. I'm sorry, but I don't remember exactly what I did. It was something to do with getting Windows to register that it knows about the scanner -- by making the right choices in the 'new hardware' wizard, I think. I know this is not very useful to you, but at least you know you're not the only victim, and that it can be fixed. If you try various options in the wizard and (unlike me), keep a record of what does and doesn't work, you should find the answer. Then (unlike me) you can contribute a really useful post to this list. I think what you'll have to do is run through the new hardware wizard after you have installed Nikonscan (I used 3.1). It will then recognise the scanner correctly (I hope). Haakon (Now if only I could get those pesky Fuji 800 negs to scan properly..)
Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect. Preston wonders: If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some cost $3,000, and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three price-level scanners give the same quality, do you? If your prints sell for hundreds of $, then $30 to $50 for a high-end scan can't be too expensive. Preston Earle, who is now ducking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never happened.---Mark Twain
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I do that as well. However, not all slides/negs need to be done that way. Clearly there is a point of diminishing returns. BTW, I've had crappy drum scans too. Really depends on the operator. My point was that they need to be free of things like visible banding that make them look like striped wallpaper. I run business, if I can save the $30 to $50 dollars per scan, why not do it? Lawrence wonders why he detects a bit of an attitude in your reply. I'm sure they are many others on this list whose work sells for as much or more than mine does. If you doubt that I am being truthful, I'd be happy to send you to a location where you could buy one for yourself ;-) Lawrence If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote: Seems pretty slight to me - Perhaps but it shows up in prints. As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect. What magnification are we looking at in the zoom? About 66% Somebody was talking about making the 8000 slow down to use only one row of CCD sensors at a time, instead of three (have I got the right scanner?) so it would seem that if you could turn on that option, you might get a preferable result. It does help but it also takes about an 1.5 hours to do a 16x, 14bit scan of a 645 neg. Clearly not an option. The bottom line is that Nikon needs to decide that it has real issue on it's hands. One second level tech essentially admitted that they did during one phone call but during a different conversation with the same individual he was adamant that the problem was not widespread and was limited to my first scanner. Clearly that is not the case. Anyway, for #k, they need to figure Lawrence, why 16x ? Are you convinced that the results are that much better? As for 14-bit vs. 8-bit color, you've already heard my rap on that. In my case, using Super Fine Scan is only a 3 or 4 minute penalty. Banding victims: I assume banding is in the direction parallel to the CCD ?? (ie., perpendicular to the motion of the film holder?) I have another theory about this that I'll try to check out tonight. Surely you've noticed the teeth on the edges of the film holders, right? I presume they're meant to engage with a gear of some sort inside the scanner, in order to move the film holder. (Hopefully just for coarse pre-scan moves, and not for actual scanning.) So I'm wondering.. is the pitch of the bands identical to the pitch of these teeth? In all cases that I've seen, the bands are remarkably wide, and very uniform in width. If this theory holds, it seems to me to indicate a very fundamental design issue. These teeth have a very large pitch considering it's a 4000 dpi machine. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I agree - I was just about to write as much. I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are you prints 36 inches square? Crikey Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do multi-scanning? Surely the DMax of the 8000 is way beyond any negative you might be scanning. And have you evaluated a scan with no multi-scanning to see if it has banding? Of course this doesn't actually excuse the banding. I've been having my own problems with the LS40 and my solution has become a degree of wilful ignorance mixed with some corrective techniques that I think are good-enough. I feel Nikon Scan could be better implemented and Vuescan doesn't work for all the old films I'm trying to scan, so I'm compromising. And as final thought, 30 minutes per image of scanning costs you real time/money. Whatever saving you're achieving by not using third-party drum scanning is offset by you having to sit around feeding negs. What hourly rate do you put on your time in the digital darkroom? I liked the photos from Cuba on your website, by the way. Particularly the clothes lines and street basketball. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: 18 July 2001 23:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect. Preston wonders: If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some cost $3,000, and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three price-level scanners give the same quality, do you? If your prints sell for hundreds of $, then $30 to $50 for a high-end scan can't be too expensive. Preston Earle, who is now ducking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never happened.---Mark Twain
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
And as final thought, 30 minutes per image of scanning costs you real time/money. Whatever saving you're achieving by not using third-party drum scanning is offset by you having to sit around feeding negs. What hourly rate do you put on your time in the digital darkroom? The digital darkroom is a mixed time blessing. I find that it sucks up a lot of time on the front end. That being said, I am able to print any number of essentially identical prints as they are needed. As for the 30mins, yeah it sucks and is expensive. However sending my film to be drum scanned is not free and the negs are then out of my control. I have never had one lost but i have had other issues that were nearly as bad. The SS120 was nice and quick but I spent about the same amount of time spotting the scans so there was no real time savings with that machine. At least with the Nikon, i can do other things (like soup negs) while it is working it's ICE magic (not on BW). As for BW prints, i still prefer silver prints anyway. I have a piezo printer and I do use it alot but i really am fond of fiber paper done the old fashioned way. I have done some tests and not all need to be scanned using 16x. 4x does the job 98% of time and is lots quicker. I don't really have enough RAM in my computer, only 384. I'd love to get one of the new G4 dual 800's with 1.5 gig of RAM. That would speed things up on all fronts. I guess I need to sell more work ;-) Lawrence p.s. glad you liked the Cuba images. It's a great place. I can't wait to go back. nikon is running a story about my trip with 15 of the images on nikonnet.com in the travel section under 'articles'.
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Raphael Bustin wrote: On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote: Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean? On this list, it means medium-format. Elsewhere, it might mean something entirely different g On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Stan McQueen wrote: MF = Medium Format (120 roll film sizes, typically) Ah! I should have realized that. I'm strictly a 35mm guy, so that didn't even occur to me. I was thinking in terms of features of the scanner. Thanks to you both. -- Terry Carroll | Denied. Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001) Modell delendus est |
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Interesting article. It actually makes me want to go on such a workshop. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith Sent: 19 July 2001 01:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... p.s. glad you liked the Cuba images. It's a great place. I can't wait to go back. nikon is running a story about my trip with 15 of the images on nikonnet.com in the travel section under 'articles'.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
At 01:20 AM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed wrote: I agree - I was just about to write as much. I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are you prints 36 inches square? Crikey I'm not Lawrence, but I'll weigh in on this. If there had been an $1500 scanner that delivered an honest 2500 dpi on MF film, I'd have bought it in an instant. I'm not convinced I need 4000 dpi. Scans of 645 negatives at 4000 dpi yield 160-170 MByte images (24-bit color.) For Lawrence, double those sizes since he's using 48-bit color. Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do multi-scanning? Surely the DMax of the 8000 is way beyond any negative you might be scanning. And have you evaluated a scan with no multi-scanning to see if it has banding? I can attest that the banding issue occurs even at 1x scanning. Though I also wonder whether Lawrence really needs to to 16x scans. On the larger issue -- I disgree strongly with the poster who suggested that a $3000 scanner couldn't (or shouldn't) be expected to do better. Oh, heck, I know that Imacon scans, drum scans, and Eversmart scans may well be better, but for $3K, I expect an absence of banding. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some cost $3,000, and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three price-level scanners give the same quality, do you? Of course a $3000 scanner should give PERFECT scans. There is no reason they shouldn't. Scanners are electronic devices, and technology drives the prices down, as well as demand. Many more people are buying scanners. They are far far cheaper to make today then they were 3 years, much less 10 years ago. I don't mean to sound crass, but you really can't be serious, can you?
filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
A quick measurement of those teeth on the 8000 ED film holders shows 8 teeth per inch (0.125 pitch.) OTOH, the banding that I've seen has a period (width) of about 30-35 pixels, which is well under 0.01 at 4000 dpi. Scratch that theory. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no adjustments, no banding. I have not yet tried making an overall correction to the master to see if that causes the problem as well. Perhaps one of you other 8000 owners can try this as well. Lawrence -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory A quick measurement of those teeth on the 8000 ED film holders shows 8 teeth per inch (0.125 pitch.) OTOH, the banding that I've seen has a period (width) of about 30-35 pixels, which is well under 0.01 at 4000 dpi. Scratch that theory. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no adjustments, no banding. Now that's interesting. How can adjusting a scanner profile have anything to do with banding? Anyone got an good explanation for that? If it somehow changed something mechanical I could understand that, but it should only be tonal curves that change...nothing mechanical?
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
on 7/18/01 2:55 PM, Terry Carroll at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote: Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable value. Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean? Medium Format. 120 film. Jim Snyder
filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at: http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm (Photos of shed, and snow-covered boats.) These might explain why some of us are pretty excited about this machine, in spite of all the negative talk 'round here. This was a totally uncorrected scan, at 1x scanning, no ICE, no nothin'. I let the scanner auto-expose the negative, and did no further image adjustments in Photoshop. As raw a scan as you can get. There are several other scans (from different scanners) on this page, so please be patient while it all loads. There are links to additional sample scans, from several other film scanners, at the bottom of the page. (Eg. Epson 1640 SU, for those considering the super-duper CompUSA sale price this week.) rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lawrence wonders why he detects a bit of an attitude in your reply. I'm sure they are many others on this list whose work sells for as much or more than mine does. If you doubt that I am being truthful, I'd be happy to send you to a location where you could buy one for yourself ;-) Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] weighed in with: Of course a $3000 scanner should give PERFECT scans. There is no reason they shouldn't. Scanners are electronic devices, and technology drives the prices down, as well as demand. Many more people are buying scanners. They are far far cheaper to make today then they were 3 years, much less 10 years ago. I don't mean to sound crass, but you really can't be serious, can you? So I add: Lawrence, if you detect an attitude of disrespect, I apologize. None was intended. I am not a photographer, and as a common camera-owner I have a great deal of respect for those of you who are true Photographers. However, I do know a little bit about scanners. I owned a pretty good printing company with high-end scanning, from a DS-608 15 years ago, through several Hell models, ending with a EverSmart Pro. I understand that the technology is changing, and what was true five years ago isn't necessarily true today. My attitude is that, today, there is a distinct difference in the quality that even an expensive small format scanner can achieve compared to a more expensive machine. I'm sure there are examples of people making wonderful photographs using inexpensive equipment. I can recall a spread in Popular Photography many years ago of absolutely stunning pictures made with a Brownie Hawkeye. But to contend that a point-and-shoot camera is the equivalent of a D1 would be laughable. Austin, I am serious. When $3,000 scanners are the equivalent of $10,000-$30,000 units, people won't be sending them back because they show significant banding in every unit. Until then, I hope people will use tools as they are intended. Today's small format scanners do a marvelous job at making good scans, but they have their limits. Preston Earle, ducking again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I have little use for a man who can't spell a word but one way.--Mark Twain
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
What I didn't understand from the linked images is that under magnification it appeared that there was some sharpening halos around some objects, while the image overall looked a bit soft? (Also, if that is banding, then that appears to be the same problem I am working on with our Scanwits - I agreed, different price points and I would expect the Scanwit to do it and not the Nikon.) Another point, the bands appear to be from single CCD cells, but are then blurred over a couple pixels - anybody else think this is the case? If so, was this a multi-scan? Is the scanner software averaging/interpolating? Does Vuescan support this scanner? If so, I would be very interested in a sample scanned using it. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I am not involved with this thread, and I don't have a Nikon. I do have a low end (Acer Scanwit) and want to comment on this attitude. I don't think anyone questions that you get what you pay for and $3,000 is certainly not going to compete with $30,000. However, basic functionality should be there, and obvious problems should not. Limited Dmin/Dmax, limited resolution, limited consistency, etc. are some of the trade off's you (I) would expect to see. However, if the banding is a result of pushing beyond the capabilities of the hardware in order to support published specifications, then that is false advertising. I have no intention of complaining about banding (yellow stains) in my Scanwit - I expect it for the price. If I had purchased a Nikon 8000, it would go back several times and then permanently for that problem. Also, only by providing feedback (complaints) can companies know what the market wants, and improve. I say, keep them honest. If they say it will do something and it doesn't, you should hold their feet to the fire until they make it right. Also, a few years ago you could say the same thing about printing your own prints using an ink-jet. Now it is accepted as professional quality by many - even with price points of less than $1000. (Some as low as $250) /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect. Preston wonders: If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some cost $3,000, and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three price-level scanners give the same quality, do you? If your prints sell for hundreds of $, then $30 to $50 for a high-end scan can't be too expensive. Preston Earle, who is now ducking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never happened.---Mark Twain
Re: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
This is a wild-ass guess, but maybe memory at the byte level isn't being accessed or allocated or released properly, and what appears as a band is the result of regular 'overflows'. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no adjustments, no banding. Now that's interesting. How can adjusting a scanner profile have anything to do with banding? Anyone got an good explanation for that? _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
Well, Thanks for all the suggestions. I have altered my work habits a little based on them. For now I am going to be shooting Fugi HG 100 most of the time until I feel I have most the variables under predictable control. (I will still shoot a roll of Provia 100F occasionally, just for the thrill.) Its great to have a resource like this list where pro's, amateurs, and newbies can share knowledge and experience. I maybe an old fart (51) but I really think most people miss the significance of being able to participate in this knowledge sharing - nothing like this has ever existed in history before and I expect it to have a major impact on society and trades/professions. /fn
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
Lawrence wrote: settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. Does the banding occur in Vuescan output? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet.. Lawrence -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory Lawrence wrote: settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. Does the banding occur in Vuescan output? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
Well, just when you think you've made progress the scanner fools you. On further testing I started getting bands without making any adjustments. This is one strange machine. One thing is consistent however, the banding is much worse at 16x. at 1x it is essentially invisible. Lawrence I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no adjustments, no banding. I have not yet tried making an overall correction to the master to see if that causes the problem as well. Perhaps one of you other 8000 owners can try this as well. Lawrence
Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
on 7/18/01 11:11 PM, rafeb wrote: I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at: http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm Rafe, I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw raises a somewhat generic question for me. The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what appears to be jpeg artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know the blue channel is typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I forget why. Isn't it because the CCD elements are least sensitive to blue light? If so that is a hardware thing. But jpeg is a software thing, so why would it also show up predominantly in the blue channel? Is that typical of jpegs, or was it just a fluke or coincidence here? Todd
Re: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
This makes it sound more like a software issue. I would further bet that the number of pixels between band peaks is evenly divisible by 8. It also makes me think I was on the right track with my earlier guess. It sounds like the samples aren't completely being reset to zero before another sample is taken. Pat - Original Message - From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, just when you think you've made progress the scanner fools you. On further testing I started getting bands without making any adjustments. This is one strange machine. One thing is consistent however, the banding is much worse at 16x. at 1x it is essentially invisible. Lawrence I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no adjustments, no banding. I have not yet tried making an overall correction to the master to see if that causes the problem as well. Perhaps one of you other 8000 owners can try this as well. Lawrence _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet.. Pity - it would be a useful comparison. Maybe someone should send Ed a SCSI command dump? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
