date:20010719




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:

 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.


And in between these two values?

What worries me a bit is that I've had cases where the 
banding shows up on the (Epson) print, but is almost invisible 
on the screen.  And no, I'm not confusing it with the micro-
banding that the printer itself might produce...


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:

 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?


Vuescan, the cure for what ails you. g

AFAIK, Vuescan does not yet support the 8000.

I tried it on my 8000 when I first got it, 
and it was a no-go.  Had a few emails 
back and forth with Ed Hamrick, and that 
was the last of it.  Ed was in need of some 
documentation from Nikon.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, tflash wrote:

 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?


I haven't looked at that scan channel-by-channel. 

It's not a perfect scan, by any means, but was 
meant to show what comes out of this scanner 
with zero effort.

If you'd like a higher-res scan of any part of 
this image, I'd be happy to email it to you.  
I used fairly severe JPG compression, thinking 
initially I'd post these images to the list.
I changed my mind and decided to put them up 
on the web site instead.


rafe b.

RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al


Norman,

Yes, that's exactly what happened. Makes one feel sorta silly, doesn't it? 
:-) That's one advantage of shooting transparencies--you can bracket to 
your heart's content (and get some interesting results, as well). Besides, 
on my Acer, they scan better. Usually. :-)

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 14:42:43 -0400

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

 message3.txt 


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory




On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Robert Meier wrote:

 Unfortunately, I do not have the email with the scan
 anymore but it seemed to me that the banding happens
 at constant pixel spacing. Therefore, I do not believe
 that it is a problem with the CCD itself because it's
 quite unlikely that the sensors are bad in a equal
 spacing. One thing I could imagine is the amplifier.
 In order to reduce noise due to fast read-out times
 and to allow somewhat faster scanning there might be
 more then 1 amplifier per CCD line. Assuming they use
 32 amplifiers, i.e. pixel x goes to amplifier 'x MOD
 32' and assuming that the gain for one of these
 amplifiers is off then you would see such banding.
 That's a pretty wild guess, though.
 
 The original poster said that he saw the banding only
 when adjustment were done. Have all other parameters
 been the same? For example I have heard some issues
 with multi-scanning on Polaroid scanners which could
 lead to soft images. If I remember correctly Nikon
 scanners have some HW support for multi-scanning. So
 instead of soft images an artifact could be banding.
 Hint: Wild guess!!!
 
 One thing you could check is if the banding always
 happens at the same place. For example do a scan of a
 picture that has some clear sharp lines. Scan it and
 record where the banding happens relative to this
 line. Repeat it to check for consistency. Then move
 the picture to be scanned a little bit within the
 holder. If the banding does change relative to the
 line it is quite likely a HW issue. Otherwise it could
 be, but doesn't have to be, a SW issue.


Where I've seen it, it's a venetian blind 
effect, and is uniform across the entire image.

The bands are around 30-35 pixels wide.  Hard 
to measure exactly.

I'm not sure I want to guess what's causing it.
Maybe mechanical, maybe electrical, who knows.
The software theories mentioned in other posts 
this morning strike me as improbable, however.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:26:51 -0400 (EDT)  Raphael Bustin 
 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 
  Can you honestly say that any one brand is more 
  or less prone to reliability or service headaches 
  than the others?  
 
 Nope. There's anecdotal reports aplenty, but no way of weighting the 
 pissed-off-and-grumbling users of any marque as a percentage of the whole. 

Bingo. That was my point.

 There are a lot of complaints about Nikons, but then there are presumably a 
 lot of Nikons. What is more interesting is the patterns that form in the 
 nature of failures. This strikes me as very useful ammunition for consumers 
 confronted by unresponsive service depts.


I don't know if any of these companies 
give much of a hoot about their film-scanner 
customers.  Cheap flatbeds, FAX machines, and 
3-in-1s (printer/scanner/copiers) present a 
much larger market, with much less demanding 
users.

I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
scanner users, whether there's any brand 
loyalty at all.  Anybody out there buy the 
same brand twice?


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service

2001-07-19 Thread Arthur Entlich




rafeb wrote:

 I don't give a rat's ass about your observations

 on this topic,

I stand behind my statements.

Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
quality of the stuff and their repair service.

In terms of their scanners, I maintain that relative to their costs,
they have, if not the highest, one of the highest levels of internet
posted complaints regarding defects in hardware and or software, and
service related issues of the major scanner companies.  Now, I'll accept
that might be due in part to more discerning purchasers making higher
demands, or even their market position, perhaps selling more scanners.
But they also cost a lot more to purchase, and that should also account
for something more than being further out of pocket.

You know, I find it interesting that just a few months back when the new
Nikon scanners were just being released, I indicted that depth of field
issues were beginning to be reported through my sources.  I got sh*t on
both this and the scanner@leben list for taking a strong stand on this
matter, stating this was a problem which had become a greater one with
the higher res Nikon scanners.  Many people demanded where is your
proof you don't own one, you are just anti-Nikon, etc.  Well, as
more of these units became disseminated to users, guess what happened...
more and more reports about the DOF limitations began to spring up, and
now its an accepted feature' of those scanners.

Only one detractor had the decency to write me privately to (sort of)
apologize for being so abusive to me. That says a lot more about them
than me.

I've grown relatively thick skinned over the years I've been
contributing to lists and groups. I give advice here based upon a
mixture of my experience, research, other published and personal
sources, and other elements.  I neither have the time nor inclination to
gather proof for statements I make.

I could be vindictive about this and demand you (and others) cite
facts every time I don't like what someone says, but I see little to be
gained.  You know as well as I, how difficult it would be to document in
an irrefutable manner most of these types of things.  Heck, the Austin
and Todd show was proof enough of that.

Since you are unwilling to disprove my statements, (I don't know how
they could be either proven or disproven, quite honestly, other than
hiring on a research team) I guess, I can only assume your viewpoint is
based upon your perceptions, as mine are upon mine.

As I said before, I don't need to be involved in a rear-end accident
with a Pinto to know they have a dangerously placed gas tank.  

So, in this kind of circumstance, I suggest letting the chips fall where
they may.  If my credibility is as lacking as you suggest, no one is
believing a word I write here anyway.  Right?

Art

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

2001-07-19 Thread Arthur Entlich




Lawrence Smith wrote:

 
 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'.

Let's hope they don't change their minds after they read your scanner
comments!

;-)

Art

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

2001-07-19 Thread Arthur Entlich


If a $500 scanner can produce a scan which has no banding, I think a $3K
one should as well.

The expectation that a $3K scanner should work well enough to not
produce banding is, IMHO, not an unreasonable one.  Heck, I expect it of
a $500 one too.

Certainly, there are likely differences between products with an order
of magnitude price differential (I sure hope so, or someone is
overpaying by quite a bit), but I do not consider price as a valid
yardstick as to if something can be defective or not.

If I buy a disposable camera which sells for $10 and its sold for
underwater photography (yes, it might say good to 10' deep) it
shouldn't fill with water when I use it in my swimming pool.

If I buy some CD-Rs which state on the outside of the package lifetime
warranty, the inside cases shouldn't say warranty against defects for
one year after purchase date (as some Memorex CD-Rs I bought do.)

Now, it might not be worth my while to complain about the leaky camera,
but in principal, I certainly have every right to be displeased and to
ask for a replacement.

The attitude that if you don't buy the top of the line, I should
expect defective merchandise is pervasive, but illogical and plays right
into the hands of the manufacturers.  If on the first time my Honda
didn't start the dealer told me, hey, what did you expect?, it's a
Honda, if your want a car that starts every time you should have bought
a BMW that would be the last time I bought a Honda. 

Art

Lawrence Smith wrote:
 
 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: Nikon Service


Rafe wrote:

I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
scanner users, whether there's any brand
loyalty at all.  Anybody out there buy the
same brand twice?

I'm every bit as brand loyal as the brands (and suppliers) are loyal to me 
and my goals. If it works like it's supposed to work, I'll stick with it. 
When they stick it *to me*, it's Adios.  :-)

Best regards--LRA

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note

Fantastic comparisons, Rafe. And much more Real Life than anything from 
the mfgrs' publicity departments. Thanks.

From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:11:04 -0400

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.

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

2001-07-19 Thread Shough, Dean


   I don't really have enough RAM in my computer, only 384.
 
 Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier because
 of 
 spooling, during the actual scanning process?


First - RAM is dirt cheap these days - I just ordered 2 - 512 MB RAMs for my
new G4 from Coast to- Coast ( http://www.coastmemory.com ) for $65 each.  At
this price why not have at least 1GB of RAM?

Second - sounds like a plausible explanation for the banding.  If this is
the case, giving more or less memory to the scanning software may change the
nature of the banding.  Or find a friend with a PC and try it out on his
system. 

Third - I am hoping to buy a Microtek 5700 or 8700 scanner (with FireWire
interfaces) for, among other things, scanning some 4x5 negatives.  I expect
to ask the list about them in a couple of weeks.

According to Ed, 
I'm hoping to work on adding support for FireWire scanners on
Mac OS X in the next week or so.  I don't know when (or if) I'll
add support for FireWire scanners on OS 9.1.

I would expect that when FireWire is supported on the Mac that the LS8000
will be supported.

RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:

   Oh, well, enough of this. We all know they exagerate.

I believe Minolta has carried this to its logical 
extreme with their upcoming medium-format scanner, 
claiming a 4.8 dynamic range -- presumably on the 
basis of its 16-bit A/Ds.  Do they suppose we're 
all that stupid?  Er.. no need to answer that.


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...

2001-07-19 Thread Jeffrey Goggin


I believe Minolta has carried this to its logical 
extreme with their upcoming medium-format scanner, 
claiming a 4.8 dynamic range -- presumably on the 
basis of its 16-bit A/Ds.  Do they suppose we're 
all that stupid?  Er.. no need to answer that.

This must be the filmscanner equivalent of turning the volume up to 11...


Jeff Goggin
Scottsdale, AZ

RE: filmscanners: Semi OT: 16-bits [was Which Buggy Software?]

2001-07-19 Thread Shough, Dean


 | Ask yourself -- how did the pros manage to get
 | nice looking colors before the ICC came along
 | to fix everything?


Work in a closed system.  Basically, the scanner directly outputs  CMYK file
that matches the characteristics of the press.  Ignore what the monitor
shows.  If you need to output to a different medium, rescan for that medium.

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:

 
 
 rafeb wrote:
 
  I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
 
  on this topic,
 
 I stand behind my statements.

Apparently not, Art.  You have yet to answer
my simple question.

 
 Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
 Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
 years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
 quality of the stuff and their repair service.

Pissing contest, based on conjecture, 
and utterly irrelevant.

 
 In terms of their scanners, I maintain that relative to their costs,
 they have, if not the highest, one of the highest levels of internet
 posted complaints regarding defects in hardware and or software, and
 service related issues of the major scanner companies.  Now, I'll accept
 that might be due in part to more discerning purchasers making higher
 demands, or even their market position, perhaps selling more scanners.
 But they also cost a lot more to purchase, and that should also account
 for something more than being further out of pocket.


The 8000 ED and the LS-120 have nearly identical
retail price at the moment.  Historically, the 
Nikon and Polaroid scanners have tracked each 
other quite closely in terms of retail cost for 
similarly-featured models.  This is public 
information, Art.  I read Shutterbug, peruse 
the BH Photo catalog, and pay attention to 
these details.  Your assertion about comparative 
pricing is just plain wrong.

Recall that when the 8000 ED was first announced, 
Nikon undercut Polaroid's estimated retail price 
for the LS-120.


 You know, I find it interesting that just a few months back when the new
 Nikon scanners were just being released, I indicted that depth of field
 issues were beginning to be reported through my sources.  I got sh*t on
 both this and the scanner@leben list for taking a strong stand on this
 matter, stating this was a problem which had become a greater one with
 the higher res Nikon scanners.  Many people demanded where is your
 proof you don't own one, you are just anti-Nikon, etc.  Well, as
 more of these units became disseminated to users, guess what happened...
 more and more reports about the DOF limitations began to spring up, and
 now its an accepted feature' of those scanners.

It is an issue, but hardly insurmountable.
The actual images that have been posted 
show that the Nikon is no slouch in terms 
of sharpness, and holds its own against the 
competition.
 

rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

2001-07-19 Thread Stephen Kogge



Re the banding problem

My first reaction was that the scan is being done off a native
resolution 4000 dpi, 2000 dpi, 1333.333 dpi, 1000dpi etc and that software
interpolation was/is being done.

After a few of the other comments about possible mechanical
problems I remember watching either my AT210 (flatbed) or an HP
doing it's scan dance where it scans forward, pauses while the
programed IO SCSI interface dumps the scan buffer, backs up past
the backlash of the gears then scans forward for another chunk.
A lot of the early scanners had poor SCSI performance.

Does the scanner seem to stop and start or is it a smooth scan?

An analogy is with many SCSI tapes that are streamers. As long
as you keep them fed with data they will keep writing (or reading) if data
stops the drive writes a stretch mark hoping to see more data soon, if no
write data is provided the drive stops, when you write again the drive has to
back up past the last data then read past the erased area where it starts the
next block. The stops and starts waste tape and slow down the drive, we solved
that back in the late 80's with the BSD dump routines and multiple write and
read buffers and proceses. 

So is it possible that your scanner is out running your system,
the scanner stops and has to back up. It could also be a similar
problem that the data rate from the CCD head is higher than what the
Scanner interface can handle and the microcode/firmware in the
scanner is doing the back up and scan a swath dance. 


-- 
Stephen N. Kogge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uimage.com

filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples
of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)?

I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand
words.

Dan

Re: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al

2001-07-19 Thread Todd Radel


 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.

Norman,

That's why I shoot test rolls on slide film -- no lab prints to
misinterpret. Slide film also has much less exposure latitude, of course, so
it's easier to see if the meter gave the right exposure. When I do use print
film for such things, I make sure to write NO COMPENSATION/NO FILTRATION
on the envelope.

-- Todd

P.S.: I bought an N80 when it first came out. I love it! It's like a baby
F100 at 1/3 the price.

--
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: Nikon Service




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:

 Rafe wrote:
 
 I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
 scanner users, whether there's any brand
 loyalty at all.  Anybody out there buy the
 same brand twice?
 
 I'm every bit as brand loyal as the brands (and suppliers) are loyal to me 
 and my goals. If it works like it's supposed to work, I'll stick with it. 
 When they stick it *to me*, it's Adios.  :-)


Aw, c'mon Lynn, just answer the question. It's really simple.
Ever bought the same brand of film scanner twice?
I sure haven't.

rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory


 It
 sounds like the
 samples aren't completely being reset to zero before another sample is
 taken.

 Pat

I am curious exactly what you mean by that?  Where are the samples not being
reset to 0?

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


 Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
 because of
 spooling, during the actual scanning process?

I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway, it
has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing there isn't
some some race condition that this long stopping exacerbates, the stopping
should, mechanically, not make any difference.

RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory

2001-07-19 Thread Pat Perez


I was proceeding from the thought that the band was
the result of 'accumulated bits' (my own term, just
made up) but someone posted a very knowledgeable note
that pretty much put the kibosh on my theory. I'm just
an armchair coder, and defer to the explanation of why
my suggestion probably was wrong.


Pat

--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  It
  sounds like the
  samples aren't completely being reset to zero
 before another sample is
  taken.
 
  Pat
 
 I am curious exactly what you mean by that?  Where
 are the samples not being
 reset to 0?
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service


 Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
 Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
 years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
 quality of the stuff and their repair service.

What Nikon equipment do you own, Art?  Why I ask, is just because it's
Nikon, doesn't mean it's the same division.  Typically, in a company as
large as Nikon, the divisions are very distinct, and one division's
performance isn't necessarily going to be the same a others.

Interestingly enough, there was no link for support on their web site, so
I couldn't find out if the same repair depots are used for the camera gear
and for scanners.

Does Nikon have any web based support for the scanners?  If so, what's the
URL?  I did find NikonNet (real obvious that this is a link to support
;-/ ) and then NikonTech (very buried, and surrounded by a lot of stuff
that has nothing to do with technical support...)...but the link to
www.nikontechusa.com gave me a DNS error.

Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Stephen Kogge wrote:

   So is it possible that your scanner is out running your system,
 the scanner stops and has to back up. It could also be a similar
 problem that the data rate from the CCD head is higher than what the
 Scanner interface can handle and the microcode/firmware in the
 scanner is doing the back up and scan a swath dance. 


Not a bad theory, Stephen, though I 
have 512 MB of RAM (700 MHz Athlon) 
and the problem is seen also on 35 
mm scans, which involve much less 
data than medium-format scans.

It is a very coarse-sounding scanner, 
as I have mentioned before.  So I 
wouldn't rule out mechanical problems. 
Stepper motors are known to resonate 
a certain step-rates, for example.

And unless I'm imagining this, there 
may also be a thermal component to this 
problem -- ie, it's more likely to 
occur on hot days, or after the 
scanner's been on a long time.



rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service

Title: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service

I spent A LOT of time on the phone with Nikon tech support when I had my first LS-8000. As a software engineer/dba with a lot of hardware experience, I've had a lot of experience with tech support in other areas. Finally, I've done my part to help Nikon meet their photographic equipment sales goals.

While I've had my issues with Nikon's service for their photographic equipment, tech support for the LS-8000 was some of the best I've experienced.

Paul Wilson

-Original Message-
From: Raphael Bustin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:

rafeb wrote:

I don't give a rat's ass about your observations

on this topic,

I stand behind my statements.

Apparently not, Art. You have yet to answer
my simple question.

Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
years of experience with their equipment as to what has
happened to the
quality of the stuff and their repair service.

Pissing contest, based on conjecture,
and utterly irrelevant.

In terms of their scanners, I maintain that relative to their costs,
they have, if not the highest, one of the highest levels of internet
posted complaints regarding defects in hardware and or software, and
service related issues of the major scanner companies.
Now, I'll accept
that might be due in part to more discerning purchasers
making higher
demands, or even their market position, perhaps selling
more scanners.
But they also cost a lot more to purchase, and that should
also account
for something more than being further out of pocket.

The 8000 ED and the LS-120 have nearly identical
retail price at the moment. Historically, the
Nikon and Polaroid scanners have tracked each
other quite closely in terms of retail cost for
similarly-featured models. This is public
information, Art. I read Shutterbug, peruse
the BH Photo catalog, and pay attention to
these details. Your assertion about comparative
pricing is just plain wrong.

Recall that when the 8000 ED was first announced,
Nikon undercut Polaroid's estimated retail price
for the LS-120.

You know, I find it interesting that just a few months back
when the new
Nikon scanners were just being released, I indicted that
depth of field
issues were beginning to be reported through my sources. I
got sh*t on
both this and the scanner@leben list for taking a strong
stand on this
matter, stating this was a problem which had become a
greater one with
the higher res Nikon scanners. Many people demanded where is your
proof you don't own one, you are just anti-Nikon, etc.
Well, as
more of these units became disseminated to users, guess
what happened...
more and more reports about the DOF limitations began to
spring up, and
now its an accepted feature' of those scanners.

It is an issue, but hardly insurmountable.
The actual images that have been posted
show that the Nikon is no slouch in terms
of sharpness, and holds its own against the
competition.

rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

2001-07-19 Thread Isaac Crawford


Stephen Kogge wrote:
 
 Re the banding problem
 
 My first reaction was that the scan is being done off a native
 resolution 4000 dpi, 2000 dpi, 1333.333 dpi, 1000dpi etc and that software
 interpolation was/is being done.
 
 After a few of the other comments about possible mechanical
 problems I remember watching either my AT210 (flatbed) or an HP
 doing it's scan dance where it scans forward, pauses while the
 programed IO SCSI interface dumps the scan buffer, backs up past
 the backlash of the gears then scans forward for another chunk.
 A lot of the early scanners had poor SCSI performance.
 
 Does the scanner seem to stop and start or is it a smooth scan?

This is completely out of left field, but could it be a power supply
(in the scanner) issue? Someone else commented on how this only seems to
show up with scanners using stepper motors... Could the stepper motors
cause spikes in the PSU that could interfere with the imaging side of
things? Either sending noise to the CCD, or even pulsing the light
source are a couple of possible ramifications... Just a wild guess...

Isaac

Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note

2001-07-19 Thread tflash



 I haven't looked at that scan channel-by-channel.
 
 It's not a perfect scan, by any means, but was
 meant to show what comes out of this scanner
 with zero effort.
 
 If you'd like a higher-res scan of any part of
 this image, I'd be happy to email it to you.

That's kind of you Rafe, but not necessary. It was really a more general
question about how the ways any given blue channel may get affected.

Thanks just the same,
Todd

  
 I used fairly severe JPG compression, thinking
 initially I'd post these images to the list.
 I changed my mind and decided to put them up
 on the web site instead.
 
 
 rafe b.
 

 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?

RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory


I've seen this too rafe.  In fact, it seem to be more distinct in the print
than on the screen.


Lawrence

 What worries me a bit is that I've had cases where the
 banding shows up on the (Epson) print, but is almost invisible
 on the screen.  And no, I'm not confusing it with the micro-
 banding that the printer itself might produce...


 rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image
samples
 of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies,
etc.)?

I should put some examples of jaggies on my web site.  Thankfully, Nikon
finally
seems to have fixed the problem with Nikonscan 3.1.  Vuescan does better
scans
from my LS30 however. :)

 I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
 doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand
 words.

Wayne Fulton's scanning FAQ may have some of that sort of thing.  I don't
have the URL though.  I can't think of a meaningful picture of grain
aliasing.  It could be described with a drawing, not with an real life scan
because by nature it is random.  The closest analogy is the moire patterns
you get when scanning offset printed magazine pictures with a flatbed at
certain ppi settings.

Rob

filmscanners: OT-Brand Loyalty (was: Nikon Service


Rafe wrote:

Aw, c'mon Lynn, just answer the question. It's really simple.
Ever bought the same brand of film scanner twice?
I sure haven't.

Gee, Rafe, since I've been scanning for less than 2 years and only done 
8,000 or so scans, how many scanners would you expect me to buy!? :-)

Have I ever bought the same brand of car twice? Yes. And regretted the 
choice--won't make it again. Almost did another time, but the dealer screwed 
up the prep, and I tore up the check and ran like a scalded cat! I keep 
looking for a good, repeatable deal, though. I'm a curable optomist. ;-)

Have I ever used the same supplier twice? Absolutely, and whenever I can. I 
figure that Loyalty is a two-way street--it's always worked for me! I'll 
even pay *more* when I know I can trust my supplier to come through in a 
pinch. This is especially important, I think, in a business environment. 
I've played the lowest bid game (under duress, I might add), and been 
royally screwed in the bargain. Even lost a job or two over it. But those 
kinds of jobs may not be worth keeping anyway, IMHO.

Now to one case at hand (and it was probably me and my #@! HP6300C that 
started this cockamamie discussion to begin with, with or without Nikon's 
complicity): an indy tech I talked to this morning (who works for a major 
retailer) says that the HP scanners are basically unserviceable, and when 
you buy the extended warranty their service stations normally just replace 
the unit--when you're out of warranty, you're also out of luck. Had I bought 
the extended warranty (which wasn't offered, that I can remember--not that I 
ordinarily buy EWs--except that on scanners I now do!) the $300+ 6300C would 
have cost a lot more than their advertised price. Considering that it only 
lasted 18 months (due to a missing line of code in their setup software, I'm 
told), I really don't think the original purchase price was good value. And 
I won't be buying or advising anyone to buy any product with an HP logo on 
it--they've simply cheaped out in the wrong places. More's the pity, 
because their design ideas are damned good. :-(

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. If I can fix this damned 
thing myself, it won't cost me a lot more than I've already lost. But I 
still won't buy another HP.

Best regards from the Service Wars--LRA



  Rafe wrote:
 
  I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
  scanner users, whether there's any brand
  loyalty at all.  Anybody out there buy the
  same brand twice?

  Lynn wrote:
  I'm every bit as brand loyal as the brands (and suppliers) are loyal 
to me
  and my goals. If it works like it's supposed to work, I'll stick with 
it.
  When they stick it *to me*, it's Adios.  :-)


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

2001-07-19 Thread Hemingway, David J

Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...









Me too



-Original
Message-
From: Wilson, Paul
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001
1:32 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: 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: image samples of digital artifacts




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Dan Honemann wrote:

 Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples
 of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)?


You mean, like a Madame-Tussaud's wax museum of 
film scanner horrors?  Sounds ghastly.

Just buy one.  Any brand.  You'll learn soon 
enough. g


rafe b.

filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review



For those interested, my colleague Michael Reichmann has just published his
initial impressions of the Nikon 8000ED. He compares it to the Imacon Photo.


http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm






Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service

2001-07-19 Thread Pat Perez


I'm on my third film scanner, and have never bought
the same brand twice, but this was certainly not due
to dissatisfaction with the product's reliability. It
is more due to the product selection/price at each
purchase. I started out with an original HP Photosmart
scanner and moved up to a Canon 2710. HP certainly
didn't offer a product with better scanning ability
than the orignal (I consider the USB an equal item,
and though HP included drivers for USB with NT 4, I
didn't want to try my luck g). The Canon served my
needs quite well and produced scans of noticeably
higher quality than the HP. Eventually I sold it in
order to get a Minolta Scan Elite because I wanted
Digital ICE and single pass multi scanning. The new
Canon that is just now coming on the market has the
operational equivalent of ICE, but I don't think it
supports single pass multi scanning. Also, the Minolta
only cost $699 from BH. I'm just a hobbyist, so
ultimate scan quality isn't a business and survival
necessity. The new 4000 dpi looked interesting but
were too expensive for me. The SS4000 is the right
price now, but I don't wan to upgrade now.

So in short, none of my experiences would prevent me
from considering the manufacturers I have experience
with, but I won't forgo functionality I want in order
to stay in their camp.


Pat
--- Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
 
  Rafe wrote:
  
  I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
  scanner users, whether there's any brand
  loyalty at all.  Anybody out there buy the
  same brand twice?
  
  I'm every bit as brand loyal as the brands (and
 suppliers) are loyal to me 
  and my goals. If it works like it's supposed to
 work, I'll stick with it. 
  When they stick it *to me*, it's Adios.  :-)
 
 
 Aw, c'mon Lynn, just answer the question. It's
 really simple.
 Ever bought the same brand of film scanner twice?
 I sure haven't.
 
 rafe b.
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service

2001-07-19 Thread Darrell Wilks


Yes, very obscure, that Nikon web support. www.nikontechusa.com was working
yesterday when I accessed it for digicam related support (which wasn't there
for the new 995). The site is downed hopefully temporarily, and hopefully
down for improvements to the awful interface. You had to read every line on
the page until you found your area of interest. Poor design.
I did download NikonScan 3.1 from that very page.
Darrell



-Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent:   Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service

 Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
 Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
 years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
 quality of the stuff and their repair service.

What Nikon equipment do you own, Art?  Why I ask, is just because it's
Nikon, doesn't mean it's the same division.  Typically, in a company as
large as Nikon, the divisions are very distinct, and one division's
performance isn't necessarily going to be the same a others.

Interestingly enough, there was no link for support on their web site, so
I couldn't find out if the same repair depots are used for the camera gear
and for scanners.

Does Nikon have any web based support for the scanners?  If so, what's the
URL?  I did find NikonNet (real obvious that this is a link to support
;-/ ) and then NikonTech (very buried, and surrounded by a lot of stuff
that has nothing to do with technical support...)...but the link to
www.nikontechusa.com gave me a DNS error.

RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:

 Does Nikon have any web based support for the scanners?  If so, what's the
 URL?  I did find NikonNet (real obvious that this is a link to support
 ;-/ ) and then NikonTech (very buried, and surrounded by a lot of stuff
 that has nothing to do with technical support...)...but the link to
 www.nikontechusa.com gave me a DNS error.


nikontechusa.com should have worked; it's alive 
as I type this.  There's also www.nikon-euro.com

All else fails, there's 800-NIKON-UX, which is 
available 24/7 for 1st-level tech support. Calling 
at 7 AM I've never waited more than a few moments.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

2001-07-19 Thread Stephen Kogge


  Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
  because of
  spooling, during the actual scanning process?
 
 I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway, it
 has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing there isn't
 some some race condition that this long stopping exacerbates, the stopping
 should, mechanically, not make any difference.
 
 

But does the head actually stop or like a lot of flatbeds scan
on the fly with CCD's you can define how long to sample - think of it
as an electronic interrupter shutter - motion artifacts will not be seen
if the relative motion is low wrt the time the CCD is sampling 
this could be as long as a ?? millisecond ???

There are usually no mechanical shutters with video and still
CCD cameras and they work with motion :-)

Anyone who has ever used a lathe knows you really want to do
the work in one pass - if/when you stop the backlash in the gears may not
register back to where you left off.

There is nothing to say you need to wait for the stepper to
stop just that it ought to have moved to the next spot. Disks now
use linear actuators and optical encoders, stepper motors have a long
settle time and the gears a backlash. This banding could be the
visible backlash as the CCD head gets back up to speed and is at the
wrong place after a pause to dump the buffer or the remote system
to flush its buffers.
 
-- 
Stephen N. Kogge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uimage.com

filmscanners: OT (was: Nikon Service


Hi, Austin--

Your point is well taken, that different divisions of Nikon are probably 
involved here, and not all run at the same level of competence. The point 
remains that a manufacturer with a name like Nikon (or any number of other 
names you'd care to mention) has a vested interest in protecting and 
supporting that name, which is worth $millions$ to their continuing sales.

This is the point I've been trying to make in these QC discussions(albeit 
perhaps obliquely, and not that we can do much about it but bitch), and I 
*think* it's the point Art is driving at (not that Art needs me to defend 
him). Any CEO that lets his (or her, in the case of HP) customer-service 
departments get away from them can be in for a world of hurt, sales-wise. 
It's just not smart business, even if it takes years to make itself felt.

Best regards--LRA



From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Service
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:19:20 -0400

  Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
  Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
  years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
  quality of the stuff and their repair service.

What Nikon equipment do you own, Art?  Why I ask, is just because it's
Nikon, doesn't mean it's the same division.  Typically, in a company as
large as Nikon, the divisions are very distinct, and one division's
performance isn't necessarily going to be the same a others.

Interestingly enough, there was no link for support on their web site, so
I couldn't find out if the same repair depots are used for the camera gear
and for scanners.

Does Nikon have any web based support for the scanners?  If so, what's the
URL?  I did find NikonNet (real obvious that this is a link to support
;-/ ) and then NikonTech (very buried, and surrounded by a lot of stuff
that has nothing to do with technical support...)...but the link to
www.nikontechusa.com gave me a DNS error.



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

Title: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

This is a possibility. As I mentioned, when I had the LS8000, it did not always band. Sometimes it would and sometimes it wouldn't. Nikon tech support did mention moving the scanner to a different location to rule out RF interference or other sources of noise. This was confirmed as a possibility by my father who's an electrical engineer/research scientist with a lot of experience designing analog circuits used in the same environments as digital stuff.

Paul Wilson

-Original Message-
From: Isaac Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding
like the first
one :-(

Stephen Kogge wrote:

Re the banding problem

My first reaction was that the scan is being done
off a native
resolution 4000 dpi, 2000 dpi, 1333.333 dpi, 1000dpi etc
and that software
interpolation was/is being done.

After a few of the other comments about possible mechanical
problems I remember watching either my AT210 (flatbed) or an HP
doing it's scan dance where it scans forward, pauses while the
programed IO SCSI interface dumps the scan buffer, backs up past
the backlash of the gears then scans forward for another chunk.
A lot of the early scanners had poor SCSI performance.

Does the scanner seem to stop and start or is it a
smooth scan?

This is completely out of left field, but could it be a
power supply
(in the scanner) issue? Someone else commented on how this
only seems to
show up with scanners using stepper motors... Could the stepper motors
cause spikes in the PSU that could interfere with the imaging side of
things? Either sending noise to the CCD, or even pulsing the light
source are a couple of possible ramifications... Just a wild guess...

Isaac

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:

  Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
  because of
  spooling, during the actual scanning process?
 
 I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway, it
 has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing there isn't
 some some race condition that this long stopping exacerbates, the stopping
 should, mechanically, not make any difference.


Austin, this ratcheting motion is common on 
many scanners, both film and flatbed.  It's a 
function of how much RAM is available within 
the scanner firmware.  If the firmware handles 
it properly it's not a problem.  If there's 
a small buffer, the scan mechanism is gated 
by the next processing block to receive the 
scan data.

My SprintScan would do it from time to time, 
and I must admit I was rather concerned the 
first time I saw it behave that way.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Rob wrote (re grain-aliasing)--

The closest analogy is the moire patterns you get when scanning offset 
printed magazine pictures with a flatbed at certain ppi settings.

This makes the exact point of my earlier post--that's not how I'd describe 
it, at all (and the Acer can grain-alias with the best of them)! :-)

Best regards--LRA

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Dan wrote:

Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples
of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, 
etc.)?

I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand
words.

Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a 
half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a website, I'd give 
it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some kind-sprited, web-savvy 
member will do it?

Best regards--LRA

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

filmscanners: Totally OT


Lawrence wrote:

I have been instructed that there will be NO 'during delivery' photos.  
Immediately afterward is ok, just not before

You could try sneaking a Minox into the birthing room. As documentary, your 
heirs might appreciate it. Not that *you'd* live to ;-)

Congrats and good luck--LRA

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...





First off, I don't think the banding is memory related. I was doing 35mm scans on a dual PIII 866 with 512MB and Ultra2 SCSI disks. This machine should have been more than capable of dealing with those file sizes.

Anyway, Lawrence, you should be able to swap out the motherboard, processor and memory and use everything else for not a ton of money ( $300 possibly). 

Paul Wilson


 -Original Message-
 From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:08 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
 
 
 Because my machine, an old pentium II 450 tops out at 384! I 
 need a whole
 new box but I simply don't have enough cash for a $3K scanner 
 and a $5K mac
 and the new lumedynes and qflash and Dynalites and $2k 140mm 
 Zeiss lens for
 my 645 that I need. At this point I have to prioritize. 
 Things that go
 into actually getting images on film have to come first. Without the
 images, the best scanner and computer in the world are 
 useless! Why have I
 not won the lotto yet? ;-)
 
 Lawrence
 
 
  First - RAM is dirt cheap these days - I just ordered 2 - 512 MB
  RAMs for my
  new G4 from Coast to- Coast ( http://www.coastmemory.com ) for
  $65 each. At
  this price why not have at least 1GB of RAM?
 .

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review


Very good review. Excellent, in fact. Please pass it on to Michael, Ian.

The only comment I would make is on Michael's, vis a vis Polaroid's 
financial troubles. It's somewhat perjoritive (although I'm sure he meant it 
only as a cautionary), and a tad irrelevant to performance. Be that as it 
may.

In the JPEG screen version, I saw *some* details that the Nikon did better 
than the Imacon. That's probably mostly artifact, though. It's still one of 
the better reviews I've read, of anything, lately.

Best regards, and thanks for the non-relevant (for me) post. (I can't 
justify *either* of them--nor the 'Blad to go with it--but it's always fun 
to dream, and see good pictures in the bargain :-))--LRA


From: Ian Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:42:05 +0100


For those interested, my colleague Michael Reichmann has just published his
initial impressions of the Nikon 8000ED. He compares it to the Imacon 
Photo.


http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm






Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com





_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests

2001-07-19 Thread Mike Duncan


I have made some measurements on 4 scanners (Canon FS-4000, Polaroid
SS4000, Nikon LS4000,  Minolta Diamage Dual) using the Q60 test image.
After reading Tony's discussion of the Q60, I had assumed the steps were
linear from 1 to 22.   They are not.  Steps 21 and 22 have half the step
change (2% insstead of 4%).  The following is taken from Kodak's Q60
specifications.

The steps (assuming a perfect slide) are:
Q60 Steps   Theoretical (%)
0 100
1 87
2 83
3 79
4 75
5 71
6 67
7 63
8 59
9 55
10 51
11 47
12 43
13 39
14 35
15 31
16 27
17 23
18 19
19 15
20 11
21 9
22 7
23 0.0

I took the Q60 images for the Canon FS-4000, Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000,
 Minolta Diamage Dual from http://www.imaging-resource.com/, and measured
gray intensities in Photoshop with Kodak's DigitalColor Meter software (Mac
OS 9.04).  The Minolta Diamage Dual was included for comparison since this
my current scanner. After adjusting the brightness setting in Vuescan
(ranging 1.4 to 1.6), the Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000 had nearly perfect
linearity down to step 23.  The Canon and Minolta had substantial
nonlinearity at step 22.

I've also noticed that a few steps are a little off on all 4 scanners at
the same place, which leads me to beleve these steps on the Q60 are off.
I'm planning on buying a Q60 and making a Kodachrome slide from it to test
the Kodachrome - Scanner response   Most of my slides are Kodachrome 64.  I
wonder which target would be the best (print or slide)?  I had assumed the
slide would be best due to the assumed higher black density.

I also measured the standard deviation of step 23 (rms noise) and got this
result:  Minolta= 7.51, Polaroid= 1.78, Canon= 1.36, Nikon= 0.45, units are
least significant bit (lsb) for 8-bit images. My measurement software (NIH
Image) only handles grayscale images. All images were brightness adjusted
for linearity.  I'm amazed that the LS4000's noise is substantially lower
than the other scanners.  However, the Nikon's noise measurement may be
inaccurate since it's noise is significantly  1-lsb.  I really need a
16-bit image file to accurately measure the Nikon's noise.

My interest in buying a new scanner is that the Minolta does a awful job
scanning Kodachrome (noise, and green and red ghosts in high contrast
scenes (offset by 6 and 15 pixels to the right, respectively, for landscape
slides). I tried 2 Dimage Duals and both had the same ghosts.

Does anyone know of a target with lower gray level steps (eg. 5% and 3%)
since the Polaroid  Nikon scanners can't be fully tested with the Q60?

Also, does anyone have Q60 or similar gray step scans from Nikon's LS-40
and LS-4000 they could send me?   I'd like to know if the LS-4000's shadow
detail and noise is much better than the LS-40's.

filmscanners: Vuescan Firewire OS 9 or 8 support

2001-07-19 Thread Mike Duncan


According to Ed,
I'm hoping to work on adding support for FireWire scanners on
Mac OS X in the next week or so.  I don't know when (or if) I'll
add support for FireWire scanners on OS 9.1.

This is one thing that is discouraging me from buying a LS4000.  I don't
plan on upgrading to Mac OSX.  I'd really like to downgrade to OS 8.6 since
MS Word 5.0a doesn't work on my G3 with Max OS9.  I hope Ed will reconsider.

Mike Duncan

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ian Lyons wrote:

 
 For those interested, my colleague Michael Reichmann has just published his
 initial impressions of the Nikon 8000ED. He compares it to the Imacon Photo.
 
 
 http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm

Thanks for that link, Ian.  Say, isn't Michael 
the same guy who says that the Canon D30 makes 
better images than 35 mm Provia?


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(




On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:

 Nikon tech support advised me to send the unit in for service this morning.
 They also said that they believed that service has been able 'fix' the
 banding issue.  They could not tell me however what they believed the issue
 really was.  They also said that they have only received a handful of calls
 about this problem.  If any of you other 8000 owners that are having this
 issue have not called about it I would ask that you do so and be sure that
 you get escalated to the 2nd level guys.  They need to know that this is a
 real problem and it's not just me and my TWO units.  I am going to send it
 for repair to see if they can indeed fix it.  Will let you know.


I just got off the phone with Nikon Level 2 support 
(a fellow named Chris) and I will be sending my 
scanner in.  I'll miss it, but this thing needs 
to be resolved.

Chris claims that Nikon service has not recived a 
unit for service, yet, for the banding problem. 
That *may* possibly be true, if Lawrence's 1st 8000 
went back to the retailer directly.

I mentioned that I was in touch with several 
other folks with the same problem.

Chris asked that others with this problem contact 
Nikon.  Call 1-800-NIKON-UX.  Talk to 1st Level 
support and explain the problem.  I got a case 
number for 2nd-level support immediately.  It 
took about 15 minutes of waiting (at 2 PM) to get 
to a real person at 1st Level.

I think their policy at the moment is to neither 
confirm nor deny the problem.  I led Chris to 
Lawrence's Banding web page while we were on 
the phone.  I think it made an impression.

The plot thickens.


rafe b.

filmscanners: LaserSoft SilverFast Forum



LaserSoft have just launched a new forum for those using SilverFast and
looking for information, advice or just feel like venting. Hopefully, we can
avoid the latter :-)

http://www.silverfast.com/forum/index.php





Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


For Vuescan, Nikon Scan and Photoshop you'll find a PC does at least as good
a job for rather less money than a Mac.

If you can find a geek type around who'll do the work for you, you can
configure a replacement motherboard, CPU, 1GB of RAM and bits to make it
work for $5-600 (maybe less, I'm in the UK and guessing here) - for that
you'll get a 1.2GHz Athlon that will blow away any Mac you can buy.  The
rest of your PC stays the same.  Of course you'll prolly want to buy a new
hard disk, what with all those huge scans flying around and a high end SCSI
disk + controller will unfortunately cost another $300+

You seriously need a geek you can trust to help you with this kind of thing
and you have to buy high quality components to make it work reliably.

The alternative is to buy an off-the-shelf PC of this spec from a system
builder.

Don't buy a Pentium 4 as it's a waste of money.

Jawed

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith
 Sent: 19 July 2001 14:08
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


 Because my machine, an old pentium II 450 tops out at 384!  I need a whole
 new box but I simply don't have enough cash for a $3K scanner and
 a $5K mac
 and the new lumedynes and qflash and Dynalites and $2k 140mm
 Zeiss lens for
 my 645 that I need.  At this point I have to prioritize.  Things that go
 into actually getting images on film have to come first.  Without the
 images, the best scanner and computer in the world are useless!
 Why have I
 not won the lotto yet?  ;-)

 Lawrence


  First - RAM is dirt cheap these days - I just ordered 2 - 512 MB
  RAMs for my
  new G4 from Coast to- Coast ( http://www.coastmemory.com ) for
  $65 each.  At
  this price why not have at least 1GB of RAM?
 .

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(



  Does the scanner seem to stop and start or is it a smooth scan?

   This is completely out of left field, but could it be a power supply
 (in the scanner) issue? Someone else commented on how this only seems to
 show up with scanners using stepper motors... Could the stepper motors
 cause spikes in the PSU that could interfere with the imaging side of
 things? Either sending noise to the CCD, or even pulsing the light
 source are a couple of possible ramifications... Just a wild guess...

 Isaac


This is a good/interesting theory.  The voltages coming out of the CCD are
tiny.  In high end CD players (multi-thousand dollars) ultra-quiet power
supplies are a key component of the design.

Jawed

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


 Chris claims that Nikon service has not recived a
 unit for service, yet, for the banding problem.
 That *may* possibly be true, if Lawrence's 1st 8000
 went back to the retailer directly.



These guys need to get their story straight.  I believe it was Chris I was
speaking with this morning and was told that he believed that service HAD
been able to fix the banding issue.  Can you say bullsh@t?  So which is it?
I guess we will see after Rafe and I send our units back...

Lawrence

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

Title: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...




I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, if so, sorry for repeating. Try making a scan of the image that has banding with Nikons colour management system turned off, completely off! Compare the images and see if it has been reduced or eliminated.




Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


I've actually done this many times myself!  I'd like to get a mac this time
(I've had 6 or 7 of them over the years and really prefer them to PCs but
that's a different story).  That being said, I might just build a new PC and
save the $$.  It would be a BIG improvement over what I'm using now no
matter which way I went!  Thanks for all suggestions everyone.

Lawrence


 You seriously need a geek you can trust to help you with this
 kind of thing
 and you have to buy high quality components to make it work reliably.

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts

2001-07-19 Thread Frank Nichols


Lynn,

I would be glad to contribute the web space and storage for this - I would
love to see examples of the terms used by everyone!

/fn

(email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED])

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
 Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:11 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


 Dan wrote:

 Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows
 image samples
 of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies,
 etc.)?
 
 I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
 doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth
 a thousand
 words.

 Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a
 half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a
 website, I'd give
 it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some
 kind-sprited, web-savvy
 member will do it?

 Best regards--LRA

 _
 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

Title: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...



Itried this and i still get the banding. 
Good idea though!

Lawrene
I 
  am not sure if this has been mentioned before, if so, sorry for repeating. Try 
  making a scan of the image that has banding with Nikons colour management 
  system turned off, completely off! Compare the images and see if it has been 
  reduced or eliminated.Ian 
  Lyonshttp://www.computer-darkroom.com

filmscanners: Vuescan gripes

2001-07-19 Thread Johnny Deadman


Well, I am using Vuescan more and more as my default scanning app but as I
do I get more and more frustrated with it. I've finally figured out what all
the settings do and what figures work for me. I can even live without a
historgram. BUT on the mac at least

-- the crop box is awful and often simply doesn't work properly

-- the folder selection tools are buggy. On one occasion I selected folder A
inside folder B as a destination for TIFFs and instead the program created a
new folder called B/A

-- worst of all, when you edit the filenames, deletes and newlines are read
as characters and become *part of the filename*. This causes all sorts of
strange behaviour. On one occasion I batch scanned six negs (sound of
fingers drumming) only to find none of the files had survived, even though I
watched them being written to disk.

-- it is far too easy to forget to change the output file name when starting
a new scan. 

-- resizing the preview box causes spastic redrawing

While I like everyone else appreciate the extraordinary effort Ed puts into
developing this app, I am frustrated that so little effort is put into the
user interface. Human interface design clearly isn't something that lights
Ed's candle, and why should it, but *something* needs to be done to make
this app not only more user friendly, but also less problematic on the Mac.

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

ICQ: 109343205

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


For those that don't get Dilbert in their local funny (?) papers, I think 
that Scott Adams has a web site. He could probably use some of this material 
in his strip. :-)

Actually, I feel your pain--LRA


From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first 
one  :-(
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:49:02 -0400

  Chris claims that Nikon service has not recived a
  unit for service, yet, for the banding problem.
  That *may* possibly be true, if Lawrence's 1st 8000
  went back to the retailer directly.
 


These guys need to get their story straight.  I believe it was Chris I was
speaking with this morning and was told that he believed that service HAD
been able to fix the banding issue.  Can you say bullsh@t?  So which is it?
I guess we will see after Rafe and I send our units back...

Lawrence



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


   This is completely out of left field, but could it be a power supply
 (in the scanner) issue? Someone else commented on how this only seems to
 show up with scanners using stepper motors... Could the stepper motors
 cause spikes in the PSU that could interfere with the imaging side of
 things? Either sending noise to the CCD, or even pulsing the light
 source are a couple of possible ramifications... Just a wild guess...

 Isaac

Is there a scanner that doesn't use a stepper motor?  I don't know, but I
would assume that most (if not all) use steppers...

Obviously, it would be a design flaw if the motors caused power supply
problems to the digital and analog sections...

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

Title: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

I no longer have my LS8000 as I've mentioned. However, Camera World did want my Nikon case # so they could return it. If anyone wants the case #, I'll supply it.

Paul Wilson

-Original Message-
From: Raphael Bustin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding
like the first
one :-(

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:

Nikon tech support advised me to send the unit in for
service this morning.
They also said that they believed that service has been
able 'fix' the
banding issue. They could not tell me however what they
believed the issue
really was. They also said that they have only received a
handful of calls
about this problem. If any of you other 8000 owners that
are having this
issue have not called about it I would ask that you do so
and be sure that
you get escalated to the 2nd level guys. They need to know
that this is a
real problem and it's not just me and my TWO units. I am
going to send it
for repair to see if they can indeed fix it. Will let you know.

I just got off the phone with Nikon Level 2 support
(a fellow named Chris) and I will be sending my
scanner in. I'll miss it, but this thing needs
to be resolved.

Chris claims that Nikon service has not recived a
unit for service, yet, for the banding problem.
That *may* possibly be true, if Lawrence's 1st 8000
went back to the retailer directly.

I mentioned that I was in touch with several
other folks with the same problem.

Chris asked that others with this problem contact
Nikon. Call 1-800-NIKON-UX. Talk to 1st Level
support and explain the problem. I got a case
number for 2nd-level support immediately. It
took about 15 minutes of waiting (at 2 PM) to get
to a real person at 1st Level.

I think their policy at the moment is to neither
confirm nor deny the problem. I led Chris to
Lawrence's Banding web page while we were on
the phone. I think it made an impression.

The plot thickens.

rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes


 I can even live without a
 histogram.

I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
live without it!

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Lynn, Rafe, Rob and others:

One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical
map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~taiji/gallery/t21.htm

???

I see this sort of artifact a lot in jpegs on the web.  Is this what is
called jaggies?  Do they show up in prints?

Thanks,
Dan

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Frank wrote:

I would be glad to contribute the web space and storage for this - I would 
love to see examples of the terms used by everyone!

Count me in for samples! (even though I'll have to go back through and 
retrieve the originals--stuff I've fixed doesn't count). :-)  I haven't 
had time to learn much about web presentation--set your parameters (file 
sizes, etc) and I'll try to comply.

Best regards and luck--LRA

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
  Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:11 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
 
 
  Dan wrote:
 
  Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows
  image samples
  of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies,
  etc.)?
  
  I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
  doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth
  a thousand
  words.
 
  Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a
  half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a
  website, I'd give
  it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some
  kind-sprited, web-savvy
  member will do it?
 
  Best regards--LRA
 
  _
  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
 



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


 Stepper motors are known to resonate
 a certain step-rates, for example.

Sorry, and I don't mean to be glib...but perhaps having an 85 pound scanner
may be an asset ;-)

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


At 08:42 PM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed Ashraf wrote:

For Vuescan, Nikon Scan and Photoshop you'll find a PC does at least as good
a job for rather less money than a Mac.

snip

Careful, Jawed.  While I might just agree with 
you, your post is quite likely to upset a few 
folks.  Folks get attached to their particular 
computers (PCs or Macs) and may have invested all 
sorts of time learning the ropes on that platform.

I only a know a few folks who've switched platforms 
willingly or succesfully.  Most are afraid to try.

Macs have a pretty devoted following among graphic 
arts professionals.  Just stating a fact here, not 
making a judgment.


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


 On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:

   Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
   because of
   spooling, during the actual scanning process?
 
  I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line
 anyway, it
  has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing
 there isn't
  some some race condition that this long stopping exacerbates,
 the stopping
  should, mechanically, not make any difference.


 Austin, this ratcheting motion is common on
 many scanners, both film and flatbed.  It's a
 function of how much RAM is available within
 the scanner firmware.  If the firmware handles
 it properly it's not a problem.  If there's
 a small buffer, the scan mechanism is gated
 by the next processing block to receive the
 scan data.

 My SprintScan would do it from time to time,
 and I must admit I was rather concerned the
 first time I saw it behave that way.


 rafe b.


Rafe,

Exactly, and that's my point.  If what was suggested is an issue, these guys
made a very basic design flaw...which I am hard pressed to believe they did,
so I question this being a problem.

I'd like to get together when I get back, and see this first hand, if you
don't mind.  Plus I'd like to bring a few negatives scanned on the
unmentionable scanner and see how your Nikon does with it.  While your
Nikon is gone, if you want to borrow my Leaf 35, you're welcome to.  I'll be
developing film for at least a week after this trip...so I'll hardly miss
it.

Austin

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Hi, Dan--

That looks like Posterization to me (at least, tha's whut ah calls it! :-) 
--cf definitions (-:|:-) ). I'd say it's probably a result (in this case, 
anyway) of pushing the sizing and JPEG compression too far. A good reference 
is Larry Berman's Compression Comparisons (BermanGraphics--You can look it 
up--I can't access the URL without losing my link on this service).

No, it's not jaggies. Jaggies are usually those obvious stair-steps you 
sometimes see on contrasty diagonals in the picture, a result of not enough 
anti-aliasing or too few colors (posterization is also a result of too few 
colors). Rob G, OTOH has all sorts of dagger-shaped jaggies produced by 
his LS30 stepper and/or software. Here again, same term, different visual 
appearance.

Best reagards--LRA


From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:44:41 -0400

Lynn, Rafe, Rob and others:

One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical
map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~taiji/gallery/t21.htm

???

I see this sort of artifact a lot in jpegs on the web.  Is this what is
called jaggies?  Do they show up in prints?

Thanks,
Dan



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts

2001-07-19 Thread Robert Meier



--- Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 One thing I've always been curious about is what
 causes the topographical
 map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of
 this image:

The old JPEG (not JPEG 2000) does code three channels
Y, Cr, Cb. The channels Cr and Cb are downsampled.
Then each channel is divided in blocks of 8x8. For
each such block you do a Discret Cosinus Transform
(DCT), devide each of the 64 resulting values by one
of 64 numbers defined by the quantization table
(higher frequency values are divided by higher numbers
then low frequency values), and then Huffman
(arithmetic coding is also possible but is less
common) entropy encoded. This is true for lossy
compression. Now if you do a high compression you
divide the values after the DCT by higher factors so
you get more 0s. Because of that the transition of one
8x8 block becomes less smooth and you see 8x8 block in
the final image.

Robert

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question

2001-07-19 Thread Dave King


- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 At 01:11 PM 7/16/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:

 I disagree with him (Margulis) on one point however, and I consider
 myself a color balance freak.  Why?  In an average color
photograph,
 global color contrast is maximized at one point only -- the most
 accurate color balance possible for that scene.  I just don't see
 how one can get there working by the numbers only (unless one also
 wants to make prints by the iterative hard proofing process), but
I
 do see how one can get there on a properly color calibrated system.
 Or at least much closer.  I would guess it's 80% vs 95%.  There's
no
 substitute for *looking* at actual color when judging this (that
I'm
 presently aware of).  The most accomplished fine art color
 photographers also making digital prints would seem to agree
judging
 by their approaches.


 Early on in Professional Photoshop (v.4 -- the one I
 read, way back) Dan explains how he had a color-blind
 friend doing color corrections, using the basic
 principles/goals that he outlines.  This friend
 made a few errors, but in fact most of his corrections
 yielded beautiful results, which do appear in the book.

 Dan insists that you could use a monochrome monitor
 to do color corrections.  Now, I admit I haven't
 tried that.  But it is quite a provocative claim,
 and follows logically from Dan's numerical approach.

I don't find this assertion provocative at all, because I've proven to
my own satisfaction this approach works well enough for general
quality publication work.  Some scenes are corrected to almost 100%
accuracy by the numbers, but most are not in my experience.

 I don't remember Dan using the word accuracy anywhere
 in that book.  Ie., color accuracy, per se, isn't held
 up as a major goal.  Speaking for myself: my goal is to
 produce pleasing, believable photographs, of subjects
 I've chosen.  Matching colors to Pantone swatches is
 nowhere on my list of priorities.

 In this regard, I reserve for my own color work the
 freedom that BW photographers enjoy, where nobody
 argues about the accuracy of the rendition.  It's
 inherently subjective.

 So, maybe it's not for everybody.  If you have clients
 with specific demands for color accuracy, you may need to
 go with the more mainstream, ICC-sanctioned methods.


 rafe b.

I don't match swatches either.  I have matched paintings critically on
occasion however, and found it quite instructive.  There is such a
thing as accuracy in color photography, but you can choose to ignore
it if you like, and probably be none the worse for it if you're doing
creative work to please yourself.

But, consider a few things...  Contrast determines form, and there are
only two types, tonal and color.  Color contrast becomes progressively
compressed as you move away from the most accurate balance possible
under the circumstances.  It's going toward and eventually ending in
monochrome.  If you're essentially a colorist in your approach to
composition, inaccurate color in photography may not be a good
thing.  Or it may not matter, or inaccurate balances may work better,
depending on intent.  But the point is, it's not a bad thing to have
full control over the aesthetics of color in composition.  I would
argue this is only possible (in a practical sense) by direct viewing,
because color interactions can be pretty subtle and still be quite
important.  Until digital allowed effective color management this
level of visual aesthetic control was only possible by the iterative
print process.  Digital editing and accurate displays speed up the
process considerably, and allow decisions that arguably wouldn't be
possible otherwise.

Dave

RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes

2001-07-19 Thread Shough, Dean


I get around all of these problems by not using these features in VueScan:
- I never have used the crop box.  Probably a carryover from when the Mac
version did not have it.
- Tried to use folders once.  Now I just leave the images in VueScan's
folder and manually move them afterwards.
- I always use the default VueScan filenames and auto incrementing numbers.
After I move the file I drop it onto iView Multimedia Pro I  add comments
and change the filename from there.
- I resize the VueScan window before scanning anything and have never seen
this problem.

I used to complain about the VueScan interface but thought it had gotten
much better recently.  Maybe I have just gotten used to VueScan and tend to
avoid its quirks.  Me: It hurts when I do this.  Doctor:  Well, don't do
that.

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review



 Thanks for that link, Ian.

Pleasures mine.


isn't Michael 
 the same guy who says that the Canon D30 makes
 better images than 35 mm Provia?

Nope, he was quoted out of context. You might want to read what he did
write, there being a subtle but important difference.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30.htm


If interested you should read all his D30 material.

BTW: I own a D30 and two EOS 1n's. I used each during my trip with Michael
to Lake Powell, Zion, Bryce in April. The results I obtained using Provia
and the D30 are mighty close and in many instances the D30 images are at
least the equal or better than Provia when printed on the 1270. I have
already exhibited a number of the D30 images at 15.5 by 11 and nobody has
yet told me that they were any less detailed than my Ciba prints.


Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com


 From: Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review
 
 
 
 On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ian Lyons wrote:
 
 
 For those interested, my colleague Michael Reichmann has just published his
 initial impressions of the Nikon 8000ED. He compares it to the Imacon Photo.
 
 
 http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm
 
 Thanks for that link, Ian.  Say, isn't Michael
 the same guy who says that the Canon D30 makes
 better images than 35 mm Provia?
 
 
 rafe b.

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes


John wrote:
 it is far too easy to forget to change the output file name when
 starting a new scan. 

True, but if you use the + after the filename in Vuescan at least you
won't overwrite anything. :)

user interface. Human interface design clearly isn't something that lights
Ed's candle, and why should it, but *something* needs to be done to make
this app not only more user friendly, but also less problematic on the
Mac.

Some of the problems could be the result of whatever cross-compiler Ed is
using.  Having said that, even in windows the crop box still misbehaves
a bit although it has imporved in the last few versions.

Filenames and folders are certainly a little frustrating - it would be nice
to be able to select an input or output folder and file using something
like the common dialogue box.  This would help especially with setting output
folders.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Lynn wrote:
 Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is
 about a half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had
 a website, I'd give it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--
 maybe some kind-sprited, web-savvy member will do it?

I'd be happy to put things online provided the examples are appropriately
sized.  I already have a page about scanning to explain the work which was
being done on looking at film types.  It would be good to have examples
of things which are problematic about scanning.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Dan wrote:
One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical
map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~taiji/gallery/t21.htm
I see this sort of artifact a lot in jpegs on the web.  Is this what is
called jaggies?  Do they show up in prints?

You need more colours.  This looks fine in 24bit on my work computer.  You
may be running less than 24bit colour.  Depending on the OS some video drivers
don't display a full palette of 24bit colour even though the driver claims
to be set to it.

So no, it's not jaggies exactly - it's your video card dithering the colours
down to what fits in your palette.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes

2001-07-19 Thread Johnny Deadman


on 7/19/01 5:45 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I can even live without a
 histogram.
 
 I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
 live without it!

Vuescan, Austin. Vuescan. Repeat after me. V-U-E-S-C-A-N

as for the histogram I set blacks and whites to clip 0.01%, which gives me
the whole damn thing, and the rest can be done in photoshop. At least it
comes in inverted, rotated and gamma-corrected.
-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

ICQ: 109343205

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts

2001-07-19 Thread Mark T.


I hate to admit this and invite pressure :), but I have been collecting 
some bits and pieces for exactly this purpose..

My initial plan was to use microphotographs as well as scan samples to show 
how the grain-aliasing on my Acer is indeed 'set off' by real grain, and 
also to show how grain patterns vary in different colours/densities on 
negs.  I once found a web-site with some of this, but do you reckon I can 
find it now..?

I still plan to do that, but may as well toss in other defects as 
well..  (Although I don't have a Nikon ;), so I'll need to get permission 
from some kind soul to add some banding/jaggie samples.)

If anyone else wants to contribute or make suggestions on other defects I 
should try to document, feel free.

In the meantime, Pete's site at http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm 
has some good g-a samples and explanations.

Mark T.

At 02:29 PM 19/07/01 -0600, you wrote:
Lynn,

I would be glad to contribute the web space and storage for this - I would
love to see examples of the terms used by everyone!

/fn

(email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED])

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
  Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:11 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
 
 
  Dan wrote:
 
  Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows
  image samples
  of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies,
  etc.)?
  
  I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but
  doesn't show pics.  Here, I think, sample images would be worth
  a thousand
  words.
 
  Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a
  half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a
  website, I'd give
  it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some
  kind-sprited, web-savvy
  member will do it?
 
  Best regards--LRA
 
  _
  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes


At 05:45 PM 7/19/01 -0400, Austin wrote:

[someone else:}
 I can even live without a
 histogram.

[Austin:]
I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
live without it!


Ayup.  I still wonder why Vuescan is so revered by so many.
Earlier versions didn't even have a preview window.

All I need or ask from my scanner driver is a decent preview 
window, a working curves tool and densitometer, and a *real* 
exposure control.

Ah well, no need to worry about it, Austin.  I don't think 
there's a version for the Leaf, anyway.


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


At 05:44 PM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
Lynn, Rafe, Rob and others:

One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical
map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~taiji/gallery/t21.htm

???

I see this sort of artifact a lot in jpegs on the web.  Is this what is
called jaggies?  Do they show up in prints?


Hold everything!  Do you mean, Prairie, Northern Tibet?

If you're seeing topo map effects in the sky, it's 
almost certainly because you have your video set to 
256 colors.  There's no way you want to attempt ANY 
image editing or capture with your screen set that way.

This is something you'd change (on a PC) using 
Control Panel-Display-Settings.

What you want is True Color, most likely 24 bits.
Using 24 bits with a high resolution requires a 
video card with a decent amount of video RAM.  So 
you may find that some of the higher resolution 
settings are grayed out when you select 24 bit color.

The sky in the Prarie photo looks smooth as silk 
on my PC, with 24 bit video.  With the screen set 
to 256 colors I get topo maps in the sky.

Get yourself an up to date video card, with at least 
8 or 16 Mbytes of video RAM.  Matrox is a decent pick 
for graphic arts and 2-D images.

Jaggies are an altogether different matter; they're 
a consequence of scanning and/or printing at too low 
a resolution.  For example, if you were to try to 
grab this little image off the web, and print it as 
8x10 on your Epson, you'd get jaggies.

There are ways to smooth out jaggies, but they 
invariably involve softening the image.


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


I tried sitting on my scanner (I'm at least 80Kg) but it made no difference,
the little begger still makes a rattling noise when it's doing a preview - a
bit like a Skoda would do if it was miniaturised.

Jawed

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
 Sent: 19 July 2001 23:08
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first
 one :-(


  Stepper motors are known to resonate
  a certain step-rates, for example.

 Sorry, and I don't mean to be glib...but perhaps having an 85
 pound scanner
 may be an asset ;-)

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...


At 06:08 PM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
 On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:

Rafe,

Exactly, and that's my point.  If what was suggested is an issue, these guys
made a very basic design flaw...which I am hard pressed to believe they did,
so I question this being a problem.

I'd like to get together when I get back, and see this first hand, if you
don't mind.  Plus I'd like to bring a few negatives scanned on the
unmentionable scanner and see how your Nikon does with it.  While your
Nikon is gone, if you want to borrow my Leaf 35, you're welcome to.  I'll be
developing film for at least a week after this trip...so I'll hardly miss
it.


Did you say, Leaf 35 ?  Not 45?  You've got the little guy too?

I have a working SprintScan Plus, so there won't be a problem with 
scanning 35 mm.

The URL for Lawrence's banding pic is: 

http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm

I've never seen anything on my 8000 quite as pronounced.

To be quite honest, I'm reconsidering that rendezvous with Nikon 
service, unless/until I can get some serious, repeatable banding 
to show up, and preferably banding that isn't defeated by 
the Super-Fine Scan trick.  So far, no dice.  At the moment, 
no banding whatsoever, with or without Super-Fine Scan.

It may not be wise, I think, to send the scanner in until the 
problem is obvious and repeatable.

Lawrence -- is there a type of image, in your experience, 
that's most likely to make the banding appear?  Slides vs. 
negatives, for example?  At present, I'm scanning slides 
with deep blue skies.

I'm wondering if your problems are exacerbated by the multi-
sampling you use.  I never use it (multi-sampling, that is.)


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb
 Sent: 19 July 2001 23:01
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

 At 08:42 PM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed Ashraf wrote:

 For Vuescan, Nikon Scan and Photoshop you'll find a PC does at
 least as good
 a job for rather less money than a Mac.

 snip

 Careful, Jawed.  While I might just agree with
 you, your post is quite likely to upset a few
 folks.  Folks get attached to their particular
 computers (PCs or Macs) and may have invested all
 sorts of time learning the ropes on that platform.

I know, Rafe.  It's sport, aint it?

I always remember my first experience of a Mac, back in the early 90s: I'd
plugged in all the cables, found the switch on the back to turn it on,
turned it on and nothing happened.

Mac users are known for their community approach (it's called muddling
through where I come from) so I headed for the basement, where the
repro/publishing mob lived and asked how do I turn it on.

Yep, it's that funny button on the keyboard with the Pause/Play symbol on
it - except that it's abstracted, so that it looks unlike a Pause/Play
symbol (surely it should be a Stop/Play symbol?).  Never mind that every
appliance known to man for a good 15 years has a vertical line intersecting
a broken circle for the on/off symbol.  Sigh.

Not to mention dragging a floppy disk icon to the trashcan - eh, you're
telling me that doesn't delete the floppy, but ejects it - I don't believe
you.

As you can see I'm heavily scarred.  The list of faults with the Mac
interface (note *interface* not operating system - the OS's faults are
fairly legendary and in many ways dwarf the UI faults) has always
entertained me, mainly because I'm lucky enough not to have to work with the
blighters.  Teehee.

The only thing Macs do well is run as internet servers.

Jawed

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


At 10:08 PM 7/19/01 +, Lynn Allen wrote:
Hi, Dan--

That looks like Posterization to me (at least, tha's whut ah calls it! :-) 
--cf definitions (-:|:-) ). I'd say it's probably a result (in this case, 
anyway) of pushing the sizing and JPEG compression too far. A good reference 
is Larry Berman's Compression Comparisons (BermanGraphics--You can look it 
up--I can't access the URL without losing my link on this service).


I'm willing to bet that Dan Honemann has his video
set to 256 colors (indexed color.)

JPG doesn't produce topo maps  Topo maps are a result 
of extreme posterization (loss of intermediate tones.)
Indexed color is, by definition, a severely posterized 
working space.  *Entirely* unsuitable for any graphic 
arts work.

To see posterization in Photoshop, go to 
Image-Adjust-Posterize, and select a small integer,
say 10 or so.  Some of the effects are quite nice, 
in fact, but hardly photographic.

Amazingly, if the integer is over 50-100 on a well-
adjusted image, you won't see the posterization at 
all.  Which is one reason that I think all this 
talk about needing 48-bit color is... well, missing 
the point somehow.  16 million colors seems to do 
the trick for me.

256-color (indexed color) associates 256 triplets 
of RGB values, with the integers 0..255.  Those 
256 triplets are called a pallette.  The video 
card can switch between pallettes quickly, and may 
be able to store several pallettes in its memory.
But it can only *use* one pallette at a time.

This is how color video was done, typically, about 
10 years ago, before True Color became the norm.

JPG doesn't cause topo map or posterization effects.
The typical signature of JPG is little blocks (8x8 
pixels) that are clearly discernable in the image.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts

2001-07-19 Thread Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc.

- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts

 Hold everything!  Do you mean, Prairie, Northern Tibet?

 If you're seeing topo map effects in the sky, it's
 almost certainly because you have your video set to
 256 colors.  There's no way you want to attempt ANY
 image editing or capture with your screen set that way.

 The sky in the Prarie photo looks smooth as silk
 on my PC, with 24 bit video.  With the screen set
 to 256 colors I get topo maps in the sky.

Thanks Rafe.  Mine looked smooth as silk too.  I couldn't figure out what I
was suppose to be seeing and wasn't.  Now I get it.

Actually, no-one COULD edit photos at 256 colors but they might try at 16
bit.  At 16 bit  the topo map effect is clearly visible too.

I think you found the problem.

BK

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Robert,

 The old JPEG (not JPEG 2000) does code three channels
 Y, Cr, Cb. The channels Cr and Cb are downsampled.
 Then each channel is divided in blocks of 8x8. For
 each such block you do a Discret Cosinus Transform
 (DCT), devide each of the 64 resulting values by one
 of 64 numbers defined by the quantization table
 (higher frequency values are divided by higher numbers
 then low frequency values), and then Huffman
 (arithmetic coding is also possible but is less
 common) entropy encoded. This is true for lossy
 compression. Now if you do a high compression you
 divide the values after the DCT by higher factors so
 you get more 0s. Because of that the transition of one
 8x8 block becomes less smooth and you see 8x8 block in
 the final image.

I guessed as much, but I had thought it was Guffman, not Huffman, and I
think I forgot to carry a 1.

;)
Dan

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Thanks, Lynn!  I look forward to whatever artifact samples you care to
share. :)

Dan

Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 Review



[rafe b:]
isn't Michael 
 the same guy who says that the Canon D30 makes
 better images than 35 mm Provia?

[Ian]
Nope, he was quoted out of context. You might want to read what he did
write, there being a subtle but important difference.


Out of context?

Hmm. I read it, again.  Yes, it's the same Michael Reichmann,
same review I read a few weeks back.

And, if I'm not mistaken, he sure does think *mighty* highly 
of the D30, as compared to Provia/Imacon/EOS-1V.

It doesn't matter.  I'm hanging in with film for a bit.


rafe b.

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes


Rafe wrote:
Ayup.  I still wonder why Vuescan is so revered by so many.
Earlier versions didn't even have a preview window.

Because it gets me results from my scanner I simply can't get with the OEM
driver.  Sure, the interface could be improved, but *any* interface that
gets me better results than Nikonscan and gives me more value for money
from my scanner purchase is very worthwhile.  I would have thrown the LS30
out the window long ago if it wasn't for Vuescan.  No interface other than
vuescan gives me 10 bits per channel, and until recently no other interface
eliminated the jaggies.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts


Rafe wrote:
I'm willing to bet that Dan Honemann has his video
set to 256 colors (indexed color.)

Some video drivers in Windows (particularly the generic Windows ones as
opposed to OEM) only display 256 colours despite being set to 16bit or 24bit.
 It was one reason I had to throw out a video card when I went from Win
3.11 to Win95.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(


Paint the edges of the negatives green, and get some Shitake Stones or what
ever they're called, sold at the high end stereo stores...some people swear
they improve their sound, so they might improve scanning ;-)

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
 Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:25 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first
 one :-(


 I tried sitting on my scanner (I'm at least 80Kg) but it made no
 difference,
 the little begger still makes a rattling noise when it's doing a
 preview - a
 bit like a Skoda would do if it was miniaturised.

 Jawed

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
  Sent: 19 July 2001 23:08
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first
  one :-(
 
 
   Stepper motors are known to resonate
   a certain step-rates, for example.
 
  Sorry, and I don't mean to be glib...but perhaps having an 85
  pound scanner
  may be an asset ;-)

RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...



 Did you say, Leaf 35 ?  Not 45?  You've got the little guy too?

Rafe,

I did.  Two reasons.  One was because the electronics are identical to the
45, so I can use the power supply, CCD board, processor/SCSI board etc. if I
have any problems with my 45, and mostly because I wanted to use it to add
features/re-write the application/plug-in, and not put my 45 out of
commission.  I also got a Mac 8500/366 (I think that's the model) to drive
it.

Thanks for the URL!

Austin

Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

2001-07-19 Thread Julian Robinson


At 01:43 20/07/01, rafe wrote:
Stepper motors are known to resonate
a certain step-rates, for example.

Yes...

Given that Nikon were reported to be having development problems with the 
higher res stepper motor for the new generation of product including the 
8000, and given that jaggies is probably a result of some stepper motor 
resonance, and given that the reported banding seems to be related to 
nothing predictable but is changeable, then it could easily in fact be 
related to processing timing and thus step times, so it seems likely that 
the banding problem may also be related to stepper motor issues.

Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than the smaller 
scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more serious and it 
may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which may not show 
up as problems on their 35mm scanners.

Julian

Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts