Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service - in Australia
Julian wrote: He actually said if you send it back, we'll just send it back to you the same. He also said I don't know the details of how it was checked, and you can't talk to the service people directly, you have to talk to me and I am only a support person as well as It is within manufacturer's specifications - at least 10 times. This is somewhat akin to the vaudeville saying, My plumber doesn't make house calls! A little like driving 55 miles to take your machine to a sevice depot, paying for the service in advance, and driving 55 miles home, then 3 weeks later driving the exact same 110 miles to retrieve it, and (when it doesn't work) opening it up to find the original dust still in the machine! Make your blood boil? Well I guess so! It's a Jungle out there!---LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Rafe wrote-- JPG doesn't produce topo maps Ah, but it does! I'd refer you to the Aniversary picture on Larry Berman's Compression page. I found (as Larry did) that getting the original image below 120mb without posterizing was impossible. :-) Topo maps are a result of extreme posterization (loss of intermediate tones.) Indexed color is, by definition, a severely posterized working space. Using that conventional wisdom, I was completely baffled when a picture I was working on in Photoshop suddenly posterized in a skin-tone area. I do not use a limited palette (except in Amiga graphics). The causes in that incident are still unknown--it was a program glitch of some sort that I corrected by using a different program to get the results I wanted. :-) [Indexed color is] *Entirely* unsuitable for any graphic arts work. That's also a bit too broad to be true. Indexed color *does* have its uses in output applications. I'd refer you to the book Real Life Photoshop. Limited color has limited applications, OTOH. The typical signature of JPG is little blocks (8x8 pixels) that are clearly discernable in the image. That's true enough. However, the little buggers are more recognizable by their shimmerey off-color than as patterns. The rule of thumb is to push the compression just that far, then back off a few clicks. You can only do this with a few programs, Picture Publisher 8 being one of them. Best regards--LRA From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:41:23 -0400 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. _ 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 :-(
= Original Message From Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] = 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. This scanner moves the CCD and the light source, instead of the film? Is that so? That's certainly a place to look for trouble, since they both have to be on opposite sides of the film, and have to be synchronized... Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is less accurate than a scanner that moves the scan head. The HP S20 seems to be the classic case. Obviously multi-scanning in the LS4000/8000 doesn't require multiple passes, but the LS40 does (Vuescan does multiple passes, Nikon Scan can't). I've noticed that the LS40's multi-pass scans, and my old Primefilm 1800's (el-cheapo scanner) multi-pass scans line up perfectly - so dare I say it, but it seems like an easy thing to manufacture these days. Unless the scanner is trying to resolve 4000ppi. Oops. Jawed
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Rafe wrote: 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. and Bob wrote: 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. OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two others (Rafe's and Bob's) do not. Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, Warning, This Picture Must Be Viewed At 48-Bits!? That doesn't sound altogether realistic, to me. :-) Best regards--LRA From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:09:24 -0500 - 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 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Well, this may be what Dan Honemann is up against on his notebook computer. I told him to ditch it. That's a little extreme, Rafe. :-) Granted that an LCD is not suited to *working* on graphics, it's viable for *viewing* them. Still, if Dan throws out his Dell Inspiron, I hope he throws it in my direction--I could use a portable backup, and could keep up with the List while I'm fishing or on vacation. g Best regards--LRA From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:23:43 -0400 At 11:33 AM 7/20/01 +1000, Rob wrote: 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. Well, this may be what Dan Honemann is up against on his notebook computer. I told him to ditch it. rafe b. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Repro issues
Dave wrote (re bad repro houses): It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in house since there's no film anyway. Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually backfire on honery and stubborn printers because clients will just take jobs where they get printed well. I have clients who trust me and see good results with my files from some printers and not others. Guess which ones will get repeat business. H. With all sincere respect, I think Dave under-estimates the stubbornness of some print houses/pressmen. :-) However, many of the establishments I had the most trouble with are now out of business (not a good thing, really--they did have limited merits), or under new management (new devils to contend with). One wonders what it is that modern businesses don't understand about the value of repeat sales. Without having a well-guarded monopoly, is there any other way to continue? It's a little like the kid who was selling pencils to pay for his college education. OK, says his neigbor, how much are they? Fifty-thousand dollars, says the kid. Isn't that an awful lot for a pencil? asks the neighbor. Yeah, says the kid, but I only need to sell ONE! It's the same principle--prices may vary in your area. :-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
Dear Mike, Thanks for the most interesting revelations. One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)? Thanks, Art Mike Duncan wrote: I have made some measurements on 4 scanners (Canon FS-4000, Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000, Minolta Diamage Dual) using the Q60 test image.
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:20:30 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Yes, I'm clutching at straws. ISTM we need more info. Here are some questions, eg:- - Has anyone tried doing a long thin sectional scan, and a short wide one, using the same parameters as give banding on a full frame. Any change? - Does this happen via Silverfast too? - Does this happen both on PC Mac? - are there any common factors between systems, eg RAM, CPU, type of firewire card? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:08:07 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Sympathy I'm trying to survive the finance payments from the last round of upgrading worn-out 12yo cameras. Lumedynes! Had to give up on that idea:( Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:41:02 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. No, I have scans of the same neg showing the effect very strikingly. You'll have to wait a while longer though. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?)
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:21:44 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in house since there's no film anyway. True. These problems have long since been resolved in newsprint, for that reason. Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually backfire on honery and stubborn printers because clients will just take jobs where they get printed well. Generally smaller repro houses don't have these problems, it's the majors. Their response has been to contractually bundle scanning for repro, so magazines pay a fixed fee which includes all scans for an issue. This makes titles most unhappy to pay for scans done by the photographer, as they are paying twice. Again, you are probably right that in the long term this will have to change, but for now it's a major obstacle. I've twice had clients say that they have no intention of paying for scans when they can get them done 'for free' by the repro house - both times, weeks after I'd done the work and invoiced, of course. Neither were even faintly interested in my reasons for scanning, although both conceded that the scans I supplied were vastly better than C41's. I no longer work with either of them, thankfully. There's another longstanding magazine client I have recently 'lost' because their repro house cock up scans every time. They know perfectly well it's the repro house at fault. After a couple of jobs which I had to do on C41 and scan (tranny would have been horrid) we've just reached a point of mutual despair. There's another where the repro is less of a problem (they have had good results) than the art director who dresses up his fear and ignorance of the issues as aesthetic snobbery, and rejects anything which has been near a digital process on principle. This is not insurmountable, but it's a PITA to have to try and work around/fool him. I have clients who trust me and see good results with my files from some printers and not others. Guess which ones will get repeat business. I certainly have clients for whom all this is no problem at all, in fact all that I have shot and scanned in the last 2 weeks has been painless. The odd thing is that most of it has been PR, distributed electronically or via CD. These images end up in all sorts of publications, without trauma. I only ever seem to have these hassles with editorial commissions for magazines - PR or annual report stuff is invariably fine. I'm not sure how fast it will change though. Magazine repro/print buying in UK is, at least sometimes, a corrupt process. I know of one buyer, employed by a major publisher, who awarded contracts on the basis of backhanders from the repro house. He was later rewarded with a directorship of the same repro house. I also know a director of an unrelated print company who regards bribery of clients' buyers as a normal operating expense, along with lavish meals and more sleazy inducements. Their clients are some of the UK's major financial institutions. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service - in Australia
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I rang them and complained bitterly, but the level of their insight and dedication of the first line help desk is not sufficient to match the nature of the problem. (IN Australia Nikon is sold and serviced by Maxwell Photo Optics who don't really have anything beyond first-line support. This guy was not up to dealing with this kind of problem). Bummer. I hope they make good with the fix, Julian. Meanwhle I'll pray that my LS30 continues to work really well... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Lawrence Smith wrote: Why have I not won the lotto yet? ;-) Lawrence Hey, you're about to be presented with the best prize (wo)mankind has to offer, a child! Cherish that gift, cause all the other stuff is just grown-up's toys. Art
Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid. I have found that as a result, using a solid platform for devices like film scanners might help them to be less likely to create sympathetic vibration in the shelf or table they are on, which might just cause a feedback vibration situation. I have certainly found that film scanners when placed on hollow metal platforms resonate making the beast sound even more noisy then they tend to on their own, and I could literally feel the vibration they created while scanning. Art Wilson, Paul wrote: 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
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
At 10:48 AM 20/07/01 +, Lynn wrote: OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two others (Rafe's and Bob's) do not. Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, Warning, This Picture Must Be Viewed At 48-Bits!? That doesn't sound altogether realistic, to me. :-) I also see a 'clean' sky in 32-bit but posterisation in 16-. Could it be that your browser is working in 16-bit mode..? I've seen some older browsers do this - check the options for any funny switches, or perhaps you should bravely upgrade from Netscape v1.0, Lynn? ;) I'm assuming you've checked all the obvious stuff, like your kids sneakily putting your video card into 16bit mode for a game. I've also noticed that flicking from one res/color depth to another can sometimes results in odd effects when you go back to the higher settings, so maybe it just needs a boot.. Failing all that, take your monitor/video card back to the supplier (at last, a non-Nikon fault!) MarkT.
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
At 10:48 AM 7/20/01 +, Lynn wrote: Rafe wrote: 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. and Bob wrote: 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. OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two others (Rafe's and Bob's) do not. Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, Warning, This Picture Must Be Viewed At 48-Bits!? That doesn't sound altogether realistic, to me. :-) I'm viewing it at 24 bits and it's fine. The one video option that's not acceptable is 256 colors. This is also refered to as indexed color. Now it's also possible that the video driver or software in Dan's notebook is *using* an indexed-color mechansim while appearing to operate as 16-bit TrueColor. This is where you may need to dig deeper into the tech details of your video hardware. And of course the vendor/manufacturer of that notebook may not be altogether up-front with the necessary details. I think there's a good deal of evidence to indicate that notebook computers, with LCD screens, are poorly suited to viewing and/or editing color graphics. This is asking for trouble. In your case, Lynn, I'm more puzzled. Can you describe the hardware and software options on the system you're using that yields posterization on the Tibet jpg? rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Tony wrote (re grain aliasing): No, I have scans of the same neg showing the effect very strikingly. You'll have to wait a while longer though. I will wait, but since *you're* the one who sent us off in search of this Holy Grail, it's only appropriate that we see your examples, one day. :-) Best regards--LRA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:36 +0100 (BST) On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:41:02 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. No, I have scans of the same neg showing the effect very strikingly. You'll have to wait a while longer though. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?)
Tony wrote: These problems have long since been resolved in newsprint, for that reason. Generally smaller repro houses don't have these problems... In the US, many (if not most) newspapers are using digital, because it's so fast. By the same token, the MajorMajors, like Time Newsweek (I've read, it may not be so in fact), are also dedicated to one form or another of digital. Their response has been to contractually bundle scanning for repro, so magazines pay a fixed fee which includes all scans for an issue. This makes titles most unhappy to pay for scans done by the photographer, as they are paying twice. clip Magazine repro/print buying in UK is, at least sometimes, a corrupt process. I know of one buyer, employed by a major publisher, who awarded contracts on the basis of backhanders from the repro house. He was later rewarded with a directorship of the same repro house. I also know a director of an unrelated print company who regards bribery of clients' buyers as a normal operating expense, along with lavish meals and more sleazy inducements. Their clients are some of the UK's major financial institutions. No kidding, Inspector Sleep! ;-) This goes on a lot in major corp's, and not just in UK. IMHO, it's a case of the CEO's letting the PAs get out of control, as long as they show profitable results (and that *is* how it works). The CEOs don't even realize the the Corp is getting the shaft, as the pomotion you mention demonstrates, regally. There's another where the repro is less of a problem (they have had good results) than the art director who dresses up his fear and ignorance of the issues as aesthetic snobbery, and rejects anything which has been near a digital process on principle. This is not insurmountable, but it's a PITA to have to try and work around/fool him. Woosh! There's a shot over the bow! Missed me completely, I'm glad to add. :-) I've met my share of these aesthetic snobs (*more* than my share, thank you ); over here in the serious-practicioners' community we refer to those people as the Artsy-Fartsy. Incredibly, they seem to be the ones who gain the Publisher's ear most of the time, by devoting all of their creative energy (if any) to playing the game. As the old saying saying goes, If you can't impress them with your competence, Dazzle 'em with your Footwork! On this particular topic, I'm going to defer to the late David Bernbach (of Doyle/Dane/Bernbach and Volkswagen/Polaroid ad fame), to quote (paraphrased): First, find a client that's being ignored. Next, help them out, show them how it should be done. Then, take the client and run, and set up your own Ad Agency...it's the only way you'll ever have the creative control you want and deserve! Best regards--LRA _ 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 :-(
At 12:03 PM 7/20/01 +0100, Jawed wrote: Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is less accurate than a scanner that moves the scan head. I disagree, and I'm sure Austin will chime in here too g. All film scanners I've worked with move the film -- except for flatbeds with TPUs. The lamp and CCD stay put. This applies to: * Microtek 35t+ * Polaroid SprintScan Plus * Minolta Scan Speed * Nikon 8000 ED * LeafScan 45 All of the above scanners move the media. CCD and lamp are stationary. In fact, except for flatbeds posing as film scanners, I can't think of any film scanners that *don't* work that way. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
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. This scanner moves the CCD and the light source, instead of the film? Is that so? That's certainly a place to look for trouble, since they both have to be on opposite sides of the film, and have to be synchronized... Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is less accurate than a scanner that moves the scan head. I don't believe either is less accurate at all, it's the complications of the two differing mechanisms that is at issue, both should be equally as accurate. I believe moving the film is going to be far less complicated. Also, if the CCD/light source moved, you would either have to position the film in the right position for scanning, or the film would have to be moved into position anyway.
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid. Somewhat true, but power supplies can still be quite heavy. It is 19.8 lbs. Not really light, but certainly not all that heavy. Your suggestion of putting it on a solid surface is certainly a good one. Hell, strap it down!
filmscanners: Scanner Service, Banding
At 02:11 PM 7/20/01 +1000, Julian Robinson wrote: I have reported on this list about the poor focus of my LS2000. I sent it back for warranty repair and today after 4 weeks I got it back - - - without trying to encourage Art any more in his campaign, what I got back is enough to drive me into a rage. big snip I can believe every word of this story, and have heard others like it. I could tell rude stories about my experiences with Brand X and Brand Y film scanners. But not today g. I've reconsidered sending in my 8000 at this time, unless or until the banding gets a good deal more bothersome or obvious. In my experience, one might get a unit back from service in worse shape than it went in. Getting the thing fixed *properly* (with a net gain in functionality) can turn into a long, protracted battle. To quote an old saw: If it works, don't fix it. For the most part, my 8000 is doing the job I expect of it, and quite well, in fact. The difference between Lawrence's experience and mine, on the same scanner, appears to be Lawrence's use of multi-sampling, which I generally avoid. I spent yesterday evening trying hard to find images that would induce serious, obvious banding akin to the images that Lawrence has posted. With 1x sampling, I just couldn't get there. The banding I do see -- and only occasionally -- is quite subtle; I generally have to point it out to people before they see it. This is not a good scenario for a clean, successful repair. I may try again tonight, but failing that, will put banding on the back burner for a while. Fixing intermittent problems is always a PITA. Hard enough for competent engineers, and probably not a job for the monkeys at Ye Olde Scanner Service Depot. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
Not that I really want to comment on this at all, but I've found that if I don't, maybe nobody will (too often, and not often enough). :-) Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of trash... Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is moved. A 35mm neg or slide is, geographically, an entirely different matter from an 8x10 reflective photo. Note, however, how much more expensive filmscanners are than flatbed scanners. The Industrial Age has been in place for numerous years--precision in either case is possible, yet expensive--and expensive in proportion to scale, perhaps. That, probably, is a Law of Physics. At least I'll think so until someone markets a 4000dpi flatbed for $100US. (and then, I'd be suspicious) :-) Best regards--LRA From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-( Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:10:57 -0400 At 12:03 PM 7/20/01 +0100, Jawed wrote: Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is less accurate than a scanner that moves the scan head. I disagree, and I'm sure Austin will chime in here too g. All film scanners I've worked with move the film -- except for flatbeds with TPUs. The lamp and CCD stay put. This applies to: * Microtek 35t+ * Polaroid SprintScan Plus * Minolta Scan Speed * Nikon 8000 ED * LeafScan 45 All of the above scanners move the media. CCD and lamp are stationary. In fact, except for flatbeds posing as film scanners, I can't think of any film scanners that *don't* work that way. rafe b. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation of how resonance can manifest it self in the actual data from the scanner being incorrect? Resonance certainly could cause micro distortion, but that is not what I believe we're seeing. I'm not convinced it's resonance, but certainly can't rule it out. I believe this is an analog manifestation. My guess is it is either in the analog gain of the CCD, power supply/grounding of the CCD or A/D (causing conversion offset problems) or the illumination. I believe these are negative scans that people have used for banding examples. Can someone scan a positive and show the banding to see if it gets lighter, instead of darker? For negatives, clear on the film represents black, and will give higher numbers, and black on the film is white or will give low numbers. When it's inverted, white is high numbers and black is low numbers. The banding in the image appears to be pixel values are darker. This would mean a higher value out of the A/D in the scanner. People have said that it appears that the problem isn't consistent. I would tend to suspect a grounding problem then. Does there seem to be a temperature component to this, ie, if it's cool, does the problem manifest it self, and warm, not? Material will, of course, expand when warmed, and contract when cooled. It could also be a ground loop... As a thought, try floating the scanner (using a two prong A/C adapter), and see if that affects anything. Also, the SCSI cable, if not made correctly, can cause ground loops...
re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
It's curious most of you are doing less modifying in PS from recent scans, I had been doing little PS modifying, but have had to make the substantial curves adjustment lately in PS to bring blue down 20-30 points and red up 5-10 points. I roll I was working on of beach pictures I changed the blue portion of the white balance settings up .05 and got MUCH better pictures, I only needed a gamma curve adjustment of about 20 points and a slight flattening in the bottom quarter tones to keep the contrast realistic. Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract 10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview. Or am I missing something? Alex Pardi -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: giovedì 19 luglio 2001 23.46 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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: Vuescan gripes
Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract 10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview. Or am I missing something? I'm also a semi-frustrated Vuescan user and while I no longer worry about setting the black and white points before scanning (I use .01% and deal with it later in PS), I also end up previewing scans in PS to get the exposure right. Because I frequently use the 16x multisample option and always scan in 16-bit mode, this means I sometimes spend as much as an hour on each image, which is a major PITA. Still, the results I get from it, despite the aggro, are far superior to what I get from Minolta's software... Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
filmscanners: Profiling scanners...
Has anybody done this successfully? I was impressed with the results I got from Microtek's DCR Color Cablibration System back when I was still using my 35t+ (which is available for sale, btw) and while I don't have any complaint with the performance of the Minolta Scan-Multi that replaced it (at least not relative to what I paid for it), I'm going to be stuck with it for a while yet because of budget limitations and would like to do get the best possible results from it that I can in the meantime. So far as I can tell, Minolta makes no provision for using profiles in its software and while Vuescan allows me to specify the color space it uses, it doesn't appear to have made any provision for profiling, either. Is there any easy way to accomplish this? I tried scanning my Q60 target and then creating an action in PS to tweak the colors back into line (I've got a slight magenta tint across the middle of the grayscale) but this didn't work very well. I've seen a reasonably priced scanner profiling setup for Mac users but alas, I'm running a PC with W2k... Any input or advice will be appreciated. I'm still learning about profiling, etc. so if my question makes me seem ignorant about the subject, that's probably because I am... Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
filmscanners: OT: David Bernbach?
Title: OT: David Bernbach? As far as I know his name was Willam Bernbach. Perhaps you're thinking of another great copywriter David Ogilvy? (who past away not very long ago). Both Bernbach and Ogilvy have written a great deal on advertising, which probably applies to all kinds of creative work for commercial purposes. Photography not the least. It's definitely worth reading if some of you ever get the time. Myself, I always keep a good book besides the computer for the those more time consuming moments of digital scanning and picture editing, just rotating someting in16 bits can be such a bore) Regards, Ivar On this particular topic, I'm going to defer to the late David Bernbach (of Doyle/Dane/Bernbach and Volkswagen/Polaroid ad fame), to quote (paraphrased): First, find a client that's being ignored. Next, help them out, show them how it should be done. Then, take the client and run, and set up your own Ad Agency...it's the only way you'll ever have the creative control you want and deserve! Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
In a message dated 7/20/2001 9:50:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract 10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview. Or am I missing something? Why would you need to check to see if the auto exposure is correct? Has anyone ever seen a case where the Device|Auto exposure option doesn't work optimally? It's fairly conservative, and there shouldn't be many pixels in the raw scan file that are above 95% of white. The clipping of the cropped file is controlled by the Color|White point (%) and Color|Black point (%) options. Is there a problem with one of these options? Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Semi OT: 16-bits [was Which Buggy Software?]
Hmm... The last disclaimer in the challenge is interesting: actually, the reason I work with 16 bits is that every time you apply a curve (which I do quite extensively in BW images) you stretch a range of values and compress another: with 16 bits you have a better rounding of the newly generated numbers, and thus get smoothest values to start with when you apply further changes. Now, it's absolutely reasonable that you'll never see any difference with usual tweakings in photographic images, yet the fact that Dan reserves himself the right to convert the 16 bits image to 8 and then back to 16, although only in extreme cases, proves that *working* with 16 bits may be worthy, no matter how much information you start with. Anyway, I'll experiment a bit (no pun intended) myself: working with 8 bits may have the extra advantage that I'll need not buy a new PC when I get a 4000dpi scanner... Alex -Original Message- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: sabato 14 luglio 2001 19.24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Semi OT: 16-bits [was Which Buggy Software?] snip Meanwhile, I am attaching his public challenge, as posted on his Color Theory group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory , which asserts that no photographic image can be corrected better in 16-bit color than it can in 8-bit color. Maris
Re: filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
Dear Mike, Thanks for the most interesting revelations. One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)? It's the original SCSI model. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
In a message dated 7/20/2001 10:23:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because I frequently use the 16x multisample option and always scan in 16-bit mode, this means I sometimes spend as much as an hour on each image, which is a major PITA. Still, the results I get from it, despite the aggro, are far superior to what I get from Minolta's software... You should _never_ need to do the 16x scan pass more than once. The preview is done in one pass (at low resolution), and will be used to compute the optimal CCD exposure and cropping. All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem. button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece of film twice. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using the Files|Output raw file option. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Pop Photo Film scanner review URL
I finally locate the Popular Photography Film scanner review at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33. What is interesting is how close the LS-40 is to the LS-4000. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one:-(
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: Not that I really want to comment on this at all, but I've found that if I don't, maybe nobody will (too often, and not often enough). :-) Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of trash... Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is moved. True enough, Lynn, but our entire job in this listserv sometimes seems to be second-guessing the manufacturers and telling them what they did wrong. g Jawed had expressed an opinion on which of two schemes might work better. I simply wanted to point out that, for better or for worse, most film scanners worked the other way. My personal guess is that the better way is the one that moves the smaller mass -- all else being equal. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
- Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:16 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes | on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | I'm inclined to agree with Dean - I seem to be able to avoid | most of VueScan's quirks, and admittedly there are more on the Mac | than on the PC. Ed has explained any of them that I have asked him | about, and he continues to improve things. | | yeah but you guys miss the point | | it's not either/or | | it should be both/and | | Vuescan has a wonderful engine but a TERRIBLE, AWFUL interface | | quite literally the worst of *any* app I have on my HD with the possible | exception of the panotools ptstitcher, but it's close | | (and that's about 10G of them) | | think how many more Ed would sell if it had a KILLER interface | | how much nicer life would be YES | | and how little effort it would take NOT REALLY - lots of effort involved. I'm satisfied that Ed puts his time into the substance - I'll wait for the form. Maris
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
To the best of my knowledge, at least here in Canada, the same division that handles the camera repairs also handles the digital scanner repairs. These days, most cameras (including Nikon's) use more electronic circuitry than mechanical parts, so it wouldn't be a stretch that both camera and scanner repairs would be handled in the same place. My experience has been that a corporate culture is defined from the top down, and that you will usually see more similarities than differences between divisions within a company, even if they are located in different countries. My personal experience has been that companies headquartered in Japan are less attuned to their clients from around the world. I suspect this might also be culturally related. The Japanese culture promotes calm and stoicism, and respect for older corporate institutions and I'd suspect they find the North American consumer awareness movement, for example, rather of an affront. In spite of the companies having North American divisions dealing with their N.A. clients, I suspect that there is a top down approach to management coming from the head offices in Japan. Lastly, N.A. and Europe are pretty far away physically from Japan, and its hard to know how much gets back to head office. I have written a few Japanese company head offices but never received a reply. I suspect there are still many linguistic barriers as well. I would love to see a more hybrid kind of management approach, where a mix of N.A. or European customer service and consumer awareness was mixed with the usually superior manufacturing and quality control of goods produced in places like Japan. Art Austin Franklin wrote: 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.
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
Actually this is what I experienced: BW film (TMax 100 or 400, don't remember), auto-exposure, defaults settings: the histogram of the raw file had almost nothing in the lower half. I rescanned with manual exposure and got it right, after a couple of trials... I don't remember the exact version of Vuescan I'm using (I'm in the office, now), but I downloaded it less than a month ago. Thanks, Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: venerdì 20 luglio 2001 17.42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes In a message dated 7/20/2001 9:50:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract 10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview. Or am I missing something? Why would you need to check to see if the auto exposure is correct? Has anyone ever seen a case where the Device|Auto exposure option doesn't work optimally? It's fairly conservative, and there shouldn't be many pixels in the raw scan file that are above 95% of white. The clipping of the cropped file is controlled by the Color|White point (%) and Color|Black point (%) options. Is there a problem with one of these options? Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
One of the neatest things about VueScan is how easy it makes setting up a new scanner. I recently switched from a Canon FS2710 to a Minolta Scan Dual II. I installed the Minolta software and had a quick look at it. I then opened VueScan, used the same settings I had been using on the Canon for a year and immediately started getting excellent scans from the new Minolta without the need for learning a new interface. The Minolta software is still there for the occasional If we use third-party software like Vuescan, when we change the scanner we need not have to spend time learning the software. I think this is one important advantage of using Vuescan over manufacturer provided software. bye Ramesh
filmscanners: Need Filmstrip Holder
Last night my filmstrip holder for my old Microtek Scanmaker 35+ broke. It's still (barely) useable, but I really need a new one. Does anyone have any idea where parts for old Microtek scanners might be found? Thanks, Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
Jeff Weir wrote: I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circuit board. Well guess what happened to me this morning. I have a SprintScan 45 Ultra. Turn it on today and set up to do a scan and get the code 6006. Lamp failure. Poloard tells me about 2 weeks repair time. Since I make a good part of my living off of this scanner, my income has just gone down. It's being shipped on monday. Chuck
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
It must be me, but I find the Vuescan interface quite good. Initially it seemed odd but within a matter of a few hours it all seemed rather slick. Granted it doesn't have some of the normal features found on many manufacturers software or the ultimate flexibility of Silverfast. Pretty windows are not the be all and end all of a good interface. In the good old days (pre-Microsoft) Autoroute(UK) was really slick to use - it's never been nearly as good since they ditched DOS and added a Windows front end and bloody wizards. With Vuescan the best trick is the ability to redo the last preview and scan in memory. It saves me several minutes each time I do it compared to a re-scan with other software. I don't suppose rescanning is much good for the film either. You can effectively rescan (without actually physically scanning) with different settings for nearly everything except resolution, focus, exposure (and multi-pass scan?) - most of which you never change unless you change the image you're scanning. If I want to try several options I turn the file output off and change the options in the colour tab (sometimes filter too) and rescan the memory until I get the desired result. When I'm happy I turn the file output back on. The main things to tweak seem to be gamma and image brightness. I invariably use white balance auto black (0) and white (0.01) point. If all else fails I try restore colours (only works with scans not previews). If I still can't get a result I try Silverfast but I generally find I can't get as good a result with Silverfast. Presumably the operator is deffective! The file numbering scheme I quite like. I just let everything default to CROP.TIF in C:\Vuescan. I do a film at a time - ensure there are no old crop files. Only do one final scan (with output) or delete dodgy output or rename with a a added before doing a second scan mem. If you have some really duff images add in a few blank dummy files. This will make sure the crop numbers match the numbers on the film/slide. Seems perfectly logical to me. Add an text,excel,database index to give the images names works great. Personally I set up an autorun to produce a set of low resolution jpegs for each file and then just scan these to find the required image. Even the cropping seems to work quite well. Originally I used the auto cropping but I found this to be a bit of a pain as you then had to then crop it in Photoshop which I have never found any better. I orientate it and crop it at the same time and that leaves less to do with the enormous 16bit files that are so slow to use. Yes the interface is unusual but once you work with the program, instead of against it, I am sure you will find it all falls into place quite nicely. It seems strange to me that Nikon (to name but one) can produce a digicam that will usually automatically produce a good white balance (and histogram) on a positively retarded processing unit, but can't do it on a 1GHz 512MB PC. After all ultimately a digicam is in most respects a scaled down portable scanner with a low spec in built computer. Steve PS. I don't want some long protracted argument over whether a digicam is like a scanner. My point is they use a lens, a CCD, an A-D converter and a computer to convert a physical image into a digital image. Given the vastly superior processing power available to most film scanners they should be capable of much better AUTOMATIC results. This is what Vuescan does so well. - Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 4:16 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Dean - I seem to be able to avoid most of VueScan's quirks, and admittedly there are more on the Mac than on the PC. Ed has explained any of them that I have asked him about, and he continues to improve things. yeah but you guys miss the point it's not either/or it should be both/and Vuescan has a wonderful engine but a TERRIBLE, AWFUL interface quite literally the worst of *any* app I have on my HD with the possible exception of the panotools ptstitcher, but it's close (and that's about 10G of them) think how many more Ed would sell if it had a KILLER interface how much nicer life would be and how little effort it would take -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
I'll see what I can do to get a fast turnaround. They will return it by same method you ship. overnite to Polaroid = overnite back to you etc. David -Original Message- From: Chuck Phelps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge Jeff Weir wrote: I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circuit board. Well guess what happened to me this morning. I have a SprintScan 45 Ultra. Turn it on today and set up to do a scan and get the code 6006. Lamp failure. Poloard tells me about 2 weeks repair time. Since I make a good part of my living off of this scanner, my income has just gone down. It's being shipped on monday. Chuck
filmscanners: PolaColor Insight 5.x
PolaColor Insight 5.0 is now posted on the Polaroid support web site http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/sprintscan/ssfamily.html
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
In a message dated 7/20/2001 12:25:52 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually this is what I experienced: BW film (TMax 100 or 400, don't remember), auto-exposure, defaults settings: the histogram of the raw file had almost nothing in the lower half. I rescanned with manual exposure and got it right, after a couple of trials... I don't remember the exact version of Vuescan I'm using (I'm in the office, now), but I downloaded it less than a month ago. Could you double-check this? If this is happening, I definitely need to fix this. I could imagine this happening if Device|Media type were set to Color negative, since this will scan with green boosted by 2.5X and blue boosted by 3.5X. This will cause the overall intensity to be too low, since the greyscale intensity is: .306*R + .601*G + .117*B Device|Media type needs to be set to B/W negative instead. One thing to note is that if the cropping includes part of the sprocket holes in the film, then the rgb exposure will be too low because it will try to avoid overexposing the sprocket holes. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Profiling scanners...
At 08:17 AM 7/20/01 +, you wrote: Has anybody done this successfully? While I use Silverfast which has that capability as an option of the Nikon LS-4000, it may also have a calibration option for your scanner as well. Check with lasersoft http://www.lasersoft-imaging.com/english/ and see if it is supported. Otherwise, try http://www.monacosys.com/ for information on one of the packages aground with this capability. Best regards, Steve Steve Norvich Quentin Corners #114 853 N. Quentin Road Palatine, Illinois 60067-0711 http://www.underwaterphotos.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Need Filmstrip Holder
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Stan McQueen wrote: Last night my filmstrip holder for my old Microtek Scanmaker 35+ broke. It's still (barely) useable, but I really need a new one. Does anyone have any idea where parts for old Microtek scanners might be found? I might have one or two spares. I bought a six-pack of these things a long time ago. (That was the only quantity they'd sell.) It's the same filmholder that's used on the (older) Polaroid SprintScans, AFAIK. Contact me off-list. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Chuck Phelps wrote: Jeff Weir wrote: I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the circuit board. Well guess what happened to me this morning. I have a SprintScan 45 Ultra. Turn it on today and set up to do a scan and get the code 6006. Lamp failure. Poloard tells me about 2 weeks repair time. Since I make a good part of my living off of this scanner, my income has just gone down. It's being shipped on monday. Been a bad couple of days for film scanners. I got an email off-list asking for help on a SS 4000 crash... as if I'd know what to do g rafe b.
Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed negatives. Am I all wet on this? On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:42:23 EDT, you wrote: You should _never_ need to do the 16x scan pass more than once. The preview is done in one pass (at low resolution), and will be used to compute the optimal CCD exposure and cropping. All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem. button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece of film twice. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using the Files|Output raw file option. Regards, Ed Hamrick -- Matt Prastein http://www.geocities.com/smprastein
Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed negatives. Am I all wet on this? No but some scanners have the ability to sample each line of pixels multiple times during a single pass. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
Don't know if it will happen to you but Polaroid quoted 10 days when I sent my 4000 in and they seem to have shipped back express mail the day they received it. j Turn it on today and set up to do a scan and get the code 6006. Lamp failure. Poloard tells me about 2 weeks repair time. Since I make a good part of my living off of this scanner, my income has just gone down. It's being shipped on monday. Chuck
Re: filmscanners: OT: David Bernbach?
Ivar, you're absolutely right! That must have been a senior moment on my part. :-) They were both greats in the ad biz. I do think it was Bill Bernbach who made the statement. Thanks for setting me straight :-) --LRA From: Ivar Järnefors [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT: David Bernbach? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:20:16 +0200 As far as I know his name was Willam Bernbach. Perhaps you're thinking of another great copywriter David Ogilvy? (who past away not very long ago). Both Bernbach and Ogilvy have written a great deal on advertising, which probably applies to all kinds of creative work for commercial purposes. Photography not the least. It's definitely worth reading if some of you ever get the time. Myself, I always keep a good book besides the computer for the those more time consuming moments of digital scanning and picture editing, just rotating someting in16 bits can be such a bore) Regards, Ivar On this particular topic, I'm going to defer to the late David Bernbach (of Doyle/Dane/Bernbach and Volkswagen/Polaroid ad fame), to quote (paraphrased): First, find a client that's being ignored. Next, help them out, show them how it should be done. Then, take the client and run, and set up your own Ad Agency...it's the only way you'll ever have the creative control you want and deserve! 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: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote: Can anyone give a reasonable explanation of how resonance can manifest it self in the actual data from the scanner being incorrect? Resonance certainly could cause micro distortion, but that is not what I believe we're seeing. I'm not convinced it's resonance, but certainly can't rule it out. I can see how resonance could cause positional errors, but not (now that you mention it) variations in CCD output. However... Electret (condenser) microphones create alternating current by allowing sound waves to impinge on a charged capacitor. Q=CV, and when C changes, current flows. (aka microphonics) This might come from vibration of the CCD itself, or of any wiring between the CCD and analog input circuitry. I've designed picoammeter circuits where this effect was a major source of noise. I believe this is an analog manifestation. My guess is it is either in the analog gain of the CCD, power supply/grounding of the CCD or A/D (causing conversion offset problems) or the illumination. I believe these are negative scans that people have used for banding examples. Can someone scan a positive and show the banding to see if it gets lighter, instead of darker? I saw some very subtle banding in the deep- blue regions of some slides scanned last night. As I recall, the effect was reversed from negative scans. In any case, on-screen, you really had to squint to see the banding. For negatives, clear on the film represents black, and will give higher numbers, and black on the film is white or will give low numbers. When it's inverted, white is high numbers and black is low numbers. The banding in the image appears to be pixel values are darker. This would mean a higher value out of the A/D in the scanner. People have said that it appears that the problem isn't consistent. I would tend to suspect a grounding problem then. Does there seem to be a temperature component to this, ie, if it's cool, does the problem manifest it self, and warm, not? Material will, of course, expand when warmed, and contract when cooled. I have suspected a thermal component for a while. The first time I saw banding was when it was around 85 degrees F outdoors, and about that same temperature in my study, where the scanner sits. It's been reasonably cool since then, which might explain the relative absence of banding. It could also be a ground loop... As a thought, try floating the scanner (using a two prong A/C adapter), and see if that affects anything. Also, the SCSI cable, if not made correctly, can cause ground loops... Except it's a Firewire connection, not SCSI. Given that this problem has been fairly repeatable among several 8000s, I'm guessing Nikon will figure out the problem after a few of these have been sent in and serviced. I'm just a bit wary of having my 8000 be the guinea pig. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
Rafe wrote: ...our entire job in this listserv sometimes seems to be second-guessing the manufacturers and telling them what they did wrong. g Seems to me they give us ample opportunity! ;-) My personal guess is that the better way is the one that moves the smaller mass -- all else being equal. That's Engineer Thinking and also a Law of Physics, which makes perfect sense. It may or may not hold true in all cases--Physics still holds some surprises, IMHO. :-) Best regards--LRA Original msg Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of trash... Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is moved. True enough, Lynn, but our entire job in this listserv sometimes seems to be second-guessing the manufacturers and telling them what they did wrong. g Jawed had expressed an opinion on which of two schemes might work better. I simply wanted to point out that, for better or for worse, most film scanners worked the other way. My personal guess is that the better way is the one that moves the smaller mass -- all else being equal. rafe b. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem. button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece of film twice. Including manual exposure adjustments and/or a long exposure pass? With my shots from Lower Antelope Canyon, I find I get slightly better results by tweaking the exposure manually rather than relying upon autoexposure. In fairness, though, determining the trade-off between highlight detail and shadow detail is a matter of personal taste. For the majority of my images, though, Vuescan's autoexposure utility does a very good job. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using the Files|Output raw file option. Indeed. I archive these along with my final finished files, just in case... Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
I think Art may be pretty much right, here, particularly about the top down management. Recent history (and personal experience) shows that this type of hierarchy tends to frown on any criticism from below, hence constructive comments dry up, and the Top becomes not only insulated but *isolated* form any hints of disent. The ultimate result is like a fire--where a single bucket of water (or good corrective measures, early on) would have extinguished it in the beginning, it can destroy most or all of the building once it's out of control. The Japanese, of all people, should realize this. But they sometimes misplace their egos, just as others of us do. A word to the wise. Does the name Bridgestone mean anything? Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:57:39 -0700 To the best of my knowledge, at least here in Canada, the same division that handles the camera repairs also handles the digital scanner repairs. These days, most cameras (including Nikon's) use more electronic circuitry than mechanical parts, so it wouldn't be a stretch that both camera and scanner repairs would be handled in the same place. My experience has been that a corporate culture is defined from the top down, and that you will usually see more similarities than differences between divisions within a company, even if they are located in different countries. My personal experience has been that companies headquartered in Japan are less attuned to their clients from around the world. I suspect this might also be culturally related. The Japanese culture promotes calm and stoicism, and respect for older corporate institutions and I'd suspect they find the North American consumer awareness movement, for example, rather of an affront. In spite of the companies having North American divisions dealing with their N.A. clients, I suspect that there is a top down approach to management coming from the head offices in Japan. Lastly, N.A. and Europe are pretty far away physically from Japan, and its hard to know how much gets back to head office. I have written a few Japanese company head offices but never received a reply. I suspect there are still many linguistic barriers as well. I would love to see a more hybrid kind of management approach, where a mix of N.A. or European customer service and consumer awareness was mixed with the usually superior manufacturing and quality control of goods produced in places like Japan. Art Austin Franklin wrote: 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. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed negatives. Am I all wet on this? IMHO, yes (no offense intended--you said it first). :-) I have an Acer, but without the IR (it's a 2720S). First of all (I haven't been following this thread), are you saying you're making 16 passes on underexposed negs? 2-4 should be more than adequate. I'd start with 1. I also don't know what you mean by seriously underexposed. 1 stop? two? three? These are going to be thin, but I've gotten credible results from very thin negs (pushed TriX, and 4 stops under) with the Acer (I used some tricks). Multiple passes are more likely to help noise problems in dense negs and slides (I could be wrong on this, of course--but dense is where most of my problems come from) If the film detail isn't there, it isn't there. You know that, of course. To suck the most out of it, I think you need to play with the Levels and the Curves in Photoshop (or your favorite IP). Noise may in fact be a serious problem--reduce it as much as you can in Mira or Vuescan, then try to correct in your IP. You may need to scan at several different settings. If you haven't checked out Pete's website (Photoscientia whatever), do so. It's an excellent guide to the Scanwit (Pete didn't like the beta 2740s, be advised--that doesn't make it 'bad,' it's just drawn that way :-) ). I don't know that I've helped, but feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards--LRA On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:42:23 EDT, you wrote: You should _never_ need to do the 16x scan pass more than once. The preview is done in one pass (at low resolution), and will be used to compute the optimal CCD exposure and cropping. All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem. button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece of film twice. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using the Files|Output raw file option. Regards, Ed Hamrick -- Matt Prastein http://www.geocities.com/smprastein _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
Been a bad couple of days for film scanners. I got an email off-list asking for help on a SS 4000 crash... as if I'd know what to do g I guess some people get pretty desperate ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Except it's a Firewire connection, not SCSI. Same issue. If the shield is connected at both ends, that's a source of ground loops.
Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
Sorry, Lynn-- my pen flew too fast. I assumed that by 16x, _highest resolution_ was meant No, I do not scan 16 times, only 3, but at highest resolution. I _think_ I see improvement in noise levels then, but I can't convince myself that doing more than 3 scans buys me anything. But Ed Hamrick _seemed_ to be saying in his last communication that even three scans is overkill, which seems to contradict earlier statements that multiple scans were good stuff at highest resolution, but inferior, if only lower resolution was needed/desired, to single scans at high resolution combined with compaction to lower resolution. On the ScanWit 2740S, using ICE and specifying 3 scans actually results in 6 scans, presumably 3 IR + 3 visual. Also, ICE or not, I must set focus to Preview Only; if set to focus on both Preview and Scan, I loose registration and the scan data is useless. If my negatives are clean, I don't need ICE (StaticMaster brushing is great). That makes multiple scans much more palatable. On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:31:01 +, you wrote: I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed negatives. Am I all wet on this? IMHO, yes (no offense intended--you said it first). :-) I have an Acer, but without the IR (it's a 2720S). First of all (I haven't been following this thread), are you saying you're making 16 passes on underexposed negs? 2-4 should be more than adequate. I'd start with 1. I also don't know what you mean by seriously underexposed. 1 stop? two? three? These are going to be thin, but I've gotten credible results from very thin negs (pushed TriX, and 4 stops under) with the Acer (I used some tricks). Multiple passes are more likely to help noise problems in dense negs and slides (I could be wrong on this, of course--but dense is where most of my problems come from) If the film detail isn't there, it isn't there. You know that, of course. To suck the most out of it, I think you need to play with the Levels and the Curves in Photoshop (or your favorite IP). Noise may in fact be a serious problem--reduce it as much as you can in Mira or Vuescan, then try to correct in your IP. You may need to scan at several different settings. If you haven't checked out Pete's website (Photoscientia whatever), do so. It's an excellent guide to the Scanwit (Pete didn't like the beta 2740s, be advised--that doesn't make it 'bad,' it's just drawn that way :-) ). I don't know that I've helped, but feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards--LRA On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:42:23 EDT, you wrote: You should _never_ need to do the 16x scan pass more than once. The preview is done in one pass (at low resolution), and will be used to compute the optimal CCD exposure and cropping. All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem. button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece of film twice. If you're a belt-and-suspenders person, make sure the raw scan file is written to disk as well by using the Files|Output raw file option. Regards, Ed Hamrick -- Matt Prastein http://www.geocities.com/smprastein _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Matt Prastein http://www.geocities.com/smprastein
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone ever seen a case where the Device|Auto exposure option doesn't work optimally? Yes, but only on images which were generally hopelessly underexposed. Autoexposure often fails on night photos. It works very well on normal daylight exposures. To be fair, I'm reasonably certain that Nikonscan would also have failed on the same images. Rob
Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
OK-- I was just too hasty and slipshod in my reading. Thanks to you and Lynn for helping me get straightened out and dried off. On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:12:23 +1000, you wrote: S. Matthew Prastein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I thought this would help in extracting info from seriously underexposed negatives. Am I all wet on this? What Ed is saying is that having done a 16X scan once on a given frame of film, you shold never have to do another 16X pass on the same frame. Use Scan Memory to rescan the data you already have, or output the raw file so you can recrop later without rescanning. Multiscanning will give you lower noise as you suggested, and in the process will give a little more signal. Personally I have never done a 16X scan. With the LS30 and multipass scanning, I don't think there's much benefit after about 4 passes. If I had an LS2000 or more recent scanner, single pass multiscanning would make 16X worthwhile. It would be worth scanning the same frame at 4X, 8X and 16X and comparing the result. Rob -- Matt Prastein http://www.geocities.com/smprastein
filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am not to optimistic. My question is: Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original photographer? TIA, /fn
filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question
I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine (Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a while back, but was deinstalled when I got the 8000. I had a need for it this evening and tried to reinstall it, with no luck. Strange thing is, the scanner itself is showing up nicely in Device manager, and all seems well with it -- no warnings, exclamation marks, or other signs of foul play. A download of the TWAIN driver from Epson (v. 5.00A) yields a self-extracting .EXE file. When exploded, this file yields a single .INF file and two .CAB files. I can unzip the .CAB files with WinZip, but not sure if I should. So now what? I tried installing from the scanner's distribution CD, and no luck there either. There's a directory on the CD with the same 3 files as in the download (a .INF and two .CAB files.) Taking the simple dummy route gets me no closer. It says (alternately) Installing TWAIN driver. Reboot computer. or TWAIN Driver deleted. Reboot computer -- but in any case, I can't see the TWAIN driver listed in PhotoShop (Select TWAIN source) for the life of me. Any ideas? Epson documentation (FAQ on web site) suggests that Plug and Play should have a role here, but it doesn't seem to. I've not seen any windows Wizards kick in to ask for that .INF file. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
Technically no; but you can probably get away with it if you make them low resolution thumbnails, since you are using the images to advertise the selling of supposedly legitimate original prints or copy prints which the scans represent and not the scans themselves or prints made from the scans. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Nichols Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:45 PM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Subject: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am not to optimistic. My question is: Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original photographer? TIA, /fn
RE: filmscanners: PolaColor Insight 5.x
Good to hear. I tried it a few times, with Provia 100F and APS neg, and it seems to be an improvement, with 12 bit scans/Color space embedded. It allows corrections(but no curves) and so far the scans look good. David, are the corrections done after or during the scan? Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:10 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: filmscanners: PolaColor Insight 5.x PolaColor Insight 5.0 is now posted on the Polaroid support web site http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/sprintscan/ssfamily.html
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
and how much more money it would cost.. count me among the vuescan satisfied users group.. I'm not much for snazzy user interfaces, I want results and quick!..what other program can you get updates every week or so?.. it just keeps getting better. Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: think how many more Ed would sell if it had a KILLER interface how much nicer life would be and how little effort it would take Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
RE: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question
Try going to the Device Manager and removing the device. Then reboot and hopefully the Wizard will show it face asking to install the new hardware, then show it the path to the new drivers. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine (Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a while back, but was deinstalled when I got the 8000. I had a need for it this evening and tried to reinstall it, with no luck.
Re: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question
Rafe, I had the same problem a while back and I believe I deleted the folder EPFB5 in the Windows\TWAIN_32 folder but I'm not sure. About a year ago I had a similar problem with the Epson 1200 scanner and an Epson support tech instructed me to delete an inf file in the TWAIN_32 folder. With the 1640 things look a little different and I think I deleted the EPFB5 folder and reinstalled the software. I've got a good memory, just short. There is also one file in the TWAIN_32 folder - WIATWAIN.DS - that also may be Epson related. The only thing I see that can be uninstalled from Add/Remove is the Epson Smart Panel and I don't think that will do it. I also rebooted with scanner on to install. I used the installation CD and then installed the update. With the 8000 there also I'd think its data would be in a separate folder. Hope this doesn't steer you wrong, Jim rafeb wrote: I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine (Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a while back, but was deinstalled when I got the 8000. I had a need for it this evening and tried to reinstall it, with no luck. Strange thing is, the scanner itself is showing up nicely in Device manager, and all seems well with it -- no warnings, exclamation marks, or other signs of foul play. A download of the TWAIN driver from Epson (v. 5.00A) yields a self-extracting .EXE file. When exploded, this file yields a single .INF file and two .CAB files. I can unzip the .CAB files with WinZip, but not sure if I should. So now what? I tried installing from the scanner's distribution CD, and no luck there either. There's a directory on the CD with the same 3 files as in the download (a .INF and two .CAB files.) Taking the simple dummy route gets me no closer. It says (alternately) Installing TWAIN driver. Reboot computer. or TWAIN Driver deleted. Reboot computer -- but in any case, I can't see the TWAIN driver listed in PhotoShop (Select TWAIN source) for the life of me. Any ideas? Epson documentation (FAQ on web site) suggests that Plug and Play should have a role here, but it doesn't seem to. I've not seen any windows Wizards kick in to ask for that .INF file. rafe b.
filmscanners: Canon FS4000 vs. Nikon LS4000
I've just joined this maillist because I want to go electronic with my slides and negatives. Currently I'm trying to decide which scanner to buy. I was ready to purchase the LS4000 when I stumbled across a review of the new Canon which on paper seems to have almost the same specs, but only costs about half the money. Based on what I've read so far, the main differences seem to be: 1) LS4000 has better dynamic range and less noise 2) FS4000 has more depth of field, i.e. scans sharp in the center as well as in the corners 3) FS4000 has slightly better dust removal Unfortunately I haven't seen any real side-by-side comparisions yet (The reviews at www.imaging-resource.com can't really convince me: they don't seem to be very consistent with their tests across different scanners and therefore the reviews are of limited use). Maybe some of you have had the opportunity to try out both? In addition to the items above I'm also interested in answers to the following questions: 4) What is more important: item 1) or 2)? 5) Scan times (real values, not marketing hype) 6) Is anybody using a SCSI to FireWire converter (e.g. the BridgeIt looks quite interesting) with his/her scanner? I have a G4 and no other SCSI devices, so if I go with the FS4000 I'd like to go FireWire if possible since Canon doesn't seem to provide a SCSI card Any information is greatly appreciated. Matthias __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
