Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help
Remmember that Sony is the only monitor that supports the Trinitron mask, which gives you better image clarity than any other shadow mask technology. - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help Mitsubishi has an excellent reputation as well, but again I don't know about the gain controls. Maris - Original Message - From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 10:12 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help | Sure, but none of the stores had G420's. | Searching the specs on the Sony www site | yields ambiguous answers. I did find that | NEC and Viewsonic monitors offer individual | gain control for RGB. So I'm starting to | consider those monitors. | -JimD | | At 12:49 AM 8/5/01 -0500, you wrote: | I don't know the answer, but while you were in the stores didn't you enter | the menu screens and see if the RGB gain adjustments were available? | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 10:33 PM | Subject: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help | | | | Excuse this off topic post | | It is astounding to me how hard it is to get details on some | | computer products. | | | | I'm looking to get two monitors for a | | dual head display to use for scanning and photoshop. | | | | I'm interested in the Sony 19 monitors. | | After numerous trips to multiple computer stores here in | | silicon valley I think that the 19 Sony G400 monitor does | | NOT have RGB gain and bias controls. I believe that the | | Sony G420 19 monitor DOES have RGB gain and bias | | controls. | | | | Can anyone on the list confirm or contradict this? | | | | I've been using a 21 Sony from work that does have this | | capability and am convinced I need RGB gain/bias | | control for calibrating with my ColorVison MC7 calibrator | | | | | | Walk into your local computer store and mention | | color profiles and see what happens. The most insightful | | response I got was something akin to, baseball's been | | very, very good to me.' | | Thanks, | | JimD | | | | | | | |
filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
I'm doing some trani scans which are underexposed [how dare I!] and having a hell of a time digging out the detail in the shadows. This detail is also somewhat brown. I have tried doing multiple passes -8 infact at 2700 dpi. I also have a tramline problem in these deep shadow areas. Are the censors damaged? Software is Vuescan 7.1.7. Can you advice a tried and true method to rake out the goodies in the shadows please. An aside... Did a sharpness test on the Scanwit / 7.1.7 using Vuescans sharpening tool...and another test without sharpening. Without wins hands down. Sharpening is definitely softer than without. Strange Geoffrey ~ Geoffrey McKell Technical Adviser / Producer PT Pelangi Tirtabayu Productions Jakarta Indonesia Ph [62 21] 916 1371; Mob. [62 21] 710478 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mandy.com.mck002.html ~
filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
Hello folks I normally use trani stock but need to do some photography using neg film [35mm] and seek your opinion as to which neg films to use through an Acer Scanwit 2720s. I have a number of locations to film and will be shooting available light interiors under fluoro and fill flash, daylight and daylight overcast. For available light interiors is 800 iso [Kodak Fuji Konica Agfa] OK these days for grain size and colour reproduction or do I need a lower ISO stock? The stock needs good colour reproduction and [reasonabely] little grain evident when scanned on the Scanwit. I have both Vuescan 7.1.7 and Miraphoto v2 [Vuescan is a mile in front IMHO]. Also which neg films in the 200, 100 or 50 iso range give good reproduction under fluoro, daylight, overcast and flash [would I like a dishwasher as well;]. Come to think of it, any comments on neg stocks and the Scanwit would be welcome. One bottom line question is - Are the current generation of neg stocks so good as to rival trani for repro work? The end result tiff files will be used for both 10x 8 prints and CMYK printing thereafter - i.e. the poster and brochure. TIA Geoffrey in Jakarta ~ Geoffrey McKell Technical Adviser / Producer PT Pelangi Tirtabayu Productions Jakarta Indonesia Ph [62 21] 916 1371; Mob. [62 21] 710478 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mandy.com.mck002.html ~
Re: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby
ShAf Wrote: You may want to check you mobo's manual with regard to which PCI slots need share IRQs. Yes, this has been mentioned on the list a number of times. My MB manual ignores the topic, I think. Just gives the option of assigning an IRQ to the VGA card, which could be useful. As far as I know, there aren't any problems here with the SCSI card and the AGP display card sharing IRQ11. Colin Maddock
Re: filmscanners: Scan Dual II Bad Elements - was Supra 400 shadows
Norman Unsworth wrote: How do the bad elements in the CCD evidence themselves? I'm sorry to report my second Minolta Dual Scan II is going to need replacement as well. Not only does it have a few funky elements in each color, (more on that later), but today I scanned some neg film (something we don't use much around here, but we had a portfolio shoot for an artist which required it) and I was shocked at the streaking the gray card image showed. At first I thought it was bad processing, since it was at the very beginning of the roll, but I then flipped the neg over and rescanned, and the defects stayed in the same locations relative to the scanner, but moved relative to the neg. This streaking is bad. A huge 300-350 pixel wide pink streak with various darker greenish ones in other locations. EKKK! So, I'm back in conversations with Minolta. It would appear, as with several other manufacturers (who will go unnamed) that Minolta might also be dealing with a slew of defects on the component level. Now, how to determine if you have some bad elements in your scanner: Obviously, if there is streaking going down the length of the frame, and it is not bad processing or scratches, then it is likely dust or dirt on the CCD, damaged or defective filters over the CCD, or a calibration problem. However, individual pixels or CCD elements can also be defective or miscalibrated. The best way I have found to check for these is to use a slide with areas of darker colors, perhaps even a near black slide will work. You want something that doesn't have a lot of lines or detail in it. Then, in something like Photoshop, zoom in to the image at about 200%, at which point you should be able to see pixels individually if you look closely. Go into channels and turn on only one, red, green or blue. I find going to the black edge (made by the slide mount) study the shorter edge closely looking for a one pixel line going lengthwise across the slide frame. These lines are often much lighter than the rest. If you see one, see if you can follow it all the way across the image to the other side. What I do is set up Photoshop to show the pixel numbers on the edge (set up in preferences) and I make note of each channel and any duff elements by pixel number. Do this process for all three channels. (R, G, B) If you do not isolate each channel, you usually cannot see them, as they get obscured by the other two channels. Once you have copied down each pixel number location, scan the slide again, but either flip it over top to bottom, OR reverse the emulsion and base surface (don't do both!). Then repeat the visual investigation. If the same pixel locations show up as lighter or whatever, regardless of the slide orientation, then the defect is the element in the scanner, not a damage on the slide. If the defects seem to be mirror imaged in position, then the defect is on your film, not the scanner. Do the same thing using negative film. In this case, the lazy elements will show up darker rather than lighter. Again, you need to use channels and isolate to one channel at a time to see this. Art
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. Does anyone know how common this is in the general population (or even just the male population)? I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. Maybe if enough people with this condition demand more objective color control we'll all benefit from easier to use color management. Art Steve Greenbank wrote: Rob, I want IT-8 calibration because I'm color blind and I want to reduce the number of variables I have to deal with. In theory, any of my calibrated scanners can be used to scan the same slide and the final files will all be nearly identical. I'm similarly afflicted and I went through a similar process, but in the end
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin are all so tentative in terms of which will become standardized, that it is probably a lot safer to use CD-R. Art Mark Edmonds wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
At 12:42 PM 7/08/01 +0700, Geoffrey wrote: I normally use trani stock but need to do some photography using neg film [35mm] and seek your opinion as to which neg films to use through an Acer Scanwit 2720s. I have a number of locations to film and will be shooting available light interiors under fluoro and fill flash, daylight and daylight overcast. For available light interiors is 800 iso [Kodak Fuji Konica Agfa] OK these days for grain size and colour reproduction or do I need a lower ISO stock? (non-professional opinions follow!) 800's are a lot better than they used to be, but you will have problems with grain-aliasing on the Acer (and that may become an issue if printing to high-quality 10 x 8's). And they still have a bit of that fast-film 'look'.. I think Fuji Reala 100 runs rings around everything, although Superia 100 is pretty close.. Superia 400 is very good for a fast film, and if you really need 800, the pro's recommend Fuji NHG II 800 Pro. If film cost is an issue, Konica Centuria 400 is very close to Superia 400. (And I have heard the new Agfa Color Vista 800 is very good - anyone tried it?) Whichever, I would strongly recommend you try a couple out to see if they will make the grade. The stock needs good colour reproduction and [reasonabely] little grain evident when scanned on the Scanwit. I have both Vuescan 7.1.7 and Miraphoto v2 [Vuescan is a mile in front IMHO]. My experience is that grain-aliasing becomes an issue with anything over 100ASA on the Acer (and even some 100's, esp. older emulsions) Also which neg films in the 200, 100 or 50 iso range give good reproduction under fluoro, daylight, overcast and flash [would I like a dishwasher as well;]. Pretty well all of them, but I think the Fuji 4-layer emulsions cope much better with mixed lighting. Others on the list will tell you any colour cast can be corrected, but I find it is MUCH easier with the Fuji's. Having said that, I don't find fluoro's as hard to balance as tungsten - but then I'm partly colourblind (grin). The new Agfa's are also supposedly strong in this area. One bottom line question is - Are the current generation of neg stocks so good as to rival trani for repro work? If you have a 4000dpi scanner, probably. But I find with 2700 dpi, the grain-aliasing makes it harder to get good enlargements (8x10 and up) off negs. mark t.
Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
At 12:37 PM 7/08/01 +0700, you wrote: I'm doing some trani scans which are underexposed [how dare I!] and having a hell of a time digging out the detail in the shadows. This detail is also somewhat brown. I have tried doing multiple passes -8 infact at 2700 dpi. I also have a tramline problem in these deep shadow areas. Are the censors damaged? Sounds like dark noise from the CCD's, but could also be electronic interference. It would be worth repositioning your scanner and its cables, maybe even try a conditioned power supply, in case the noise is coming from an external source, eg the monitor, cards in the PC, other devices... Also, make sure the lamp opening (referred to below) is clear and smoothly edged, ie no hairs or ragged bits of plastic forming. Software is Vuescan 7.1.7. Can you advice a tried and true method to rake out the goodies in the shadows please. One thing you can try (but if you are down to dark noise it is unlikely to help) - at the handle end of the slide holder, there is a rectangular notched opening through which the Acer reads the lamp brightness colour before the scan. If you reduce the amount of light that gets through (eg cut up a bit of neutral density gel) you may be able to tweak some more exposure.. Also, experiment with Vuescans Image Type setting - Image and Slide give quite different results.. An aside... Did a sharpness test on the Scanwit / 7.1.7 using Vuescans sharpening tool...and another test without sharpening. Without wins hands down. Sharpening is definitely softer than without. Strange Very strange! I'm using 7.1.7/Scanwit also, but it works as advertised. Are you using the grain reduction at the same time perhaps? mark t
Re: filmscanners: reply regarding Sony 420 G monitor
Pat writes ... ... Someone had asked about the Sony 420 monitor's ability to adjust color channels from the front panel. I answered that my 420GS doesn't but I just noticed that with my new PC, my new video card allows that capability. ... It is hard to imagine this Sony monitor not having the ability to tweak the individual guns (... is this some type of consumer model? ...). The adjustment is usually in the context of manually adjusting the temperature or whitepoint (... e.g., 5500, 6500, etc ...). It is claimed (... probably not noticeably ...), that adjusting the hardware is better than letting software adjust the color look-up-table (ref: Real World PS6) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Excellent post, Bob. I think you covered the bases completely. :-) Best regards--Lynn Allen From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:39:51 -0500 My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently the cheapest format for long term storage. If your storage needs can be met with CD-R it is probably your best low maintenance choice, as long as you can afford the time involved with burning CD's. And you be sure to keep a CD drive or two available when their popularity ceases, if ever. DVD-RAM, although currenty more expensive, provides more storage per disk. If you need vast quantities of storage (for 4000dpi 8/16 bit TIF files perhaps) this is a very viable low maintenance choice. This is also somewhat time consuming, as writing DVD-RAM is painfully slow. You will also want to be sure to keep your particular format drives available should they ever be discontinued in the future. Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free, high speed, high volume storage. Like DVD it is getting less and less expensive but is not for the faint of wallet. : ) For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I remember not that long ago (for some of us) paying
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
This should probably go off list so please direct replies to me personally. I am quite interested in how others are affected. I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. Does anyone know how common this is in the general population (or even just the male population)? About 8% of men and 0.5% of women (they usually carry the gene and give it to the men). I don't know if it's normal but I seem to suffer more from low colour resolution - the bigger the object the more likely I am to see the colour correctly. I don't know if this is normal, but it renders the dot tests impossible. I do however seem to have extremely good night vision. Is this normal for colour blind people ? This sort of suggests to me that I have many more BW receptors than normal (and hence fewer colour) as these work better in low light situations. The effects can seem a bit bizarre. As a child I was taken Strawberry picking. I could only see unripe strawberries unless the ripe one's were actually pointed out to me. Raspberries proved to be no problem. So bright red against green was a dead loss, but the darker raspberries and even green strawberries were no problem against the green leaves. You can have a quick test on the net - although I wouldn't like to say how your set-up may affect the accuracy of the test. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8833/coloreye.html For the record and for those afflicted, you can compare the extent of your affliction to me. Top left OK Top right can't see a thing even when I know what number I am looking for. Mid left can't see a thing even when I know what number I am looking for. Mid Right I am prepared to believe the answer (although it looks more like another number to me) but couldn't see a thing until I knew the answer. Bottom left can't see a thing even when I know what number I am looking for. Bottom Right looks like a different number to me. Steve I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. Maybe if enough people with this condition demand more objective color control we'll all benefit from easier to use color management. Art Steve Greenbank wrote: Rob, I want IT-8 calibration because I'm color blind and I want to reduce the number of variables I have to deal with. In theory, any of my calibrated scanners can be used to scan the same slide and the final files will all be nearly identical. I'm similarly afflicted and I went through a similar process, but in the end
Re: filmscanners: Colorblindness, was IT8 Calibration..etc
At 02:29 AM 7/08/01 -0700, you wrote: I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. Does anyone know how common this is in the general population (or even just the male population)? Quite a few of us, I'll wager.. About 10% of the male population have 'colour impairment', most commonly in the red-green area, like me. Very few are truly blind to colour and actually see in bw, so the world is still very colourful to most of us. Have a look here for an interesting discussion with Dan Margulis (just click on the yellow link..): http://web1.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ACT-Colorblindness-Web.html I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. Me too! I've always wondered why on earth I am so fascinated by colour and want to work with it despite the difficulty - perhaps it is exactly *because* of the added attention one has to pay to colour early in life. I remember a teacher in about 2nd grade making unkind comments about the lime green lion I had painted. I figured they were green so they could hide in what I presumed was the green grass of Africa. :) Before that I had no idea I had a problem.. Maybe if enough people with this condition demand more objective color control we'll all benefit from easier to use color management. And wouldn't life be wonderful sigh. But from what I see, I'll be dead and gone before it is easy. :( My approach (currently being implemented..) is to carry a colour test target with me, include it as one frame in the shoot, and then try and get the numbers to match as best I can. (And get someone normal to check on me now and then..) mark t
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Richard wrote: I archive all my critical stuff (scans and work) onto external 30GIG HD's. At around £90 a unit I don¹t think you can beat them for reliability and speed. An excellent idea, but it needs mentioning that you have to keep magnetic media far away from other magnets--a radio speaker (a most common degausing source) can wreak havok with tape or magnetic disc alike, for example. We won't go into the effects of an atomic airburst, since that wouldn't leave many people who actually care. :-o Best regards--LRA From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:29:10 +0100 Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin are all so tentative in terms of which will become standardized, that it is probably a lot safer to use CD-R. I archive all my critical stuff (scans and work) onto external 30GIG HD's. At around £90 a unit I don¹t think you can beat them for reliability and speed. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ / _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: reply regarding Sony 420 G monitor
shAF wrote: It is hard to imagine this Sony monitor not having the ability to tweak the individual guns (... is this some type of consumer model? ...). AFAICT, my Dell Trinatron monitor does not--it's not upfront, at any rate. Possibly there's a software tweak that I'm not aware of. Best regards--LRA From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: reply regarding Sony 420 G monitor Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:35:31 -0230 Pat writes ... ... Someone had asked about the Sony 420 monitor's ability to adjust color channels from the front panel. I answered that my 420GS doesn't but I just noticed that with my new PC, my new video card allows that capability. ... It is hard to imagine this Sony monitor not having the ability to tweak the individual guns (... is this some type of consumer model? ...). The adjustment is usually in the context of manually adjusting the temperature or whitepoint (... e.g., 5500, 6500, etc ...). It is claimed (... probably not noticeably ...), that adjusting the hardware is better than letting software adjust the color look-up-table (ref: Real World PS6) shAf :o) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Jim Snyder wrote: [chop] you can stand a little bit of image quality loss, use ZIP [chop] H - this email list needs an FAQ - or some pointers to certain image FAQs on the web now and again. Image compression is a rather complex mathematical process that usually requires some 'dumping' of image data to gain good compression ratios - thus these compression schemes are 'lossy'. Non-lossy compression schemes use LZW type compressors which are good when there is a lot of replicated data in a file - but not so good for images that have a large variation of data components. The problem with most people is the mixup of file formats with compression schemes. For example, TIF can be compressed or uncompressed - it uses LZW to compress - but two TIF files are still called XXX.TIF and YYY.TIF even though one is raw data and one is compressed data. There is no such thing as an 'LZW' extension - only file formats that use it. Ive attached a small HTML doc with some specs. Not exact, but a guide - if anyone wants to add formats then do so. bert Filmscanners archive at: http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Title: Compression File Extension Developed for? Compression Scheme Effect of compression % Saving for images Useable for? TIF image storage LZW or none lossless 15% archive copy ZIP general file store fancy LZW lossless 18% archive copy JPG (Joint Pictures expert Group) image storage JPEG lossy 80% non-archive (web!) GIF (good! interchange format) image storage LZW lossless 15% nasty 256 colour only PNG (portable network grahpics) image storage fancy LZW lossless 22% archive copy WIF (wavelet image format) image storage waveform mathematics lossy 95% proprietary FIF (fractal image format) image storage fractal mathematics lossy 90% proprietary PCD (Kodak PhotoCD) image storage fancy JPEG lossy 70% archive (but not perfect copy) FPX (Kodak Flashpix) image storage sortof JPEG / PCD mix lossy 80% non-archive web apps
filmscanners: Photoshop History Tip re: Memory Usage
Here's a tip from Elements K that may address some of the PS memory concerns I've seen posted here... The number of History States will affect how Photoshop runs The History palette can be quite useful, but it can also be a memory hog. To see how many History States you have, choose Edit Preferences General. If you're working with low resolution files then go ahead and allot yourself a minimum of 20 History States, but try not to go over 40. If you're working with predominantly large files set it to 3 or 4. This should keep you from getting that annoying warning about not having enough memory whenever you try to run a filter. Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Bob! I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. There are various MOD standards and some of them a older than CDR. All over the world MOD jukeboxes have been used and are still used to store and archive digital data. MODs are definitely more reliably than CDRs because the data is stored in a complete different way. On a CDR the data is stored by changing the optical characteristics of an organic dye. This dye will grow old an fade out some how just like film. On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. cu Flo
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Bert wrote: Ive attached a small HTML doc with some specs. Not exact, but a guide - if anyone wants to add formats then do so. Very good post, Bert, and thank you. IMO, some of the confusion, vis a vis archiving, is based on lossy vs. lossless compression. STM the difference is in how it's to be used. If the files are going to be uses for public viewing (as mine are, and consistently have been), then the lossy JPEG format is perfectly acceptable, as long as you keep the JPEG artifacts out of your pictures (you can recognize them by their shimmery off-color pixels, and adjust back if you have a proper JPEGing program). If you're going to later do either retouching or large blow-ups, then the much-higher-sized lossless file compressions are what you should use. In fact, you should probably save in the uncompressed Photoshop (or whatever) format, shine the compression, and just take your lumps with file size. :-) Bert's attachment is an excellent guide, and thanks again for the input. Best regards--LRA From: Robert Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:31:15 +0100 Jim Snyder wrote: [chop] you can stand a little bit of image quality loss, use ZIP [chop] H - this email list needs an FAQ - or some pointers to certain image FAQs on the web now and again. Image compression is a rather complex mathematical process that usually requires some 'dumping' of image data to gain good compression ratios - thus these compression schemes are 'lossy'. Non-lossy compression schemes use LZW type compressors which are good when there is a lot of replicated data in a file - but not so good for images that have a large variation of data components. The problem with most people is the mixup of file formats with compression schemes. For example, TIF can be compressed or uncompressed - it uses LZW to compress - but two TIF files are still called XXX.TIF and YYY.TIF even though one is raw data and one is compressed data. There is no such thing as an 'LZW' extension - only file formats that use it. Ive attached a small HTML doc with some specs. Not exact, but a guide - if anyone wants to add formats then do so. bert Filmscanners archive at: http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Title: Compression File Extension Developed for? Compression Scheme Effect of compression % Saving for images Useable for? TIF image storage LZW or none lossless 15% archive copy ZIP general file store fancy LZW lossless 18% archive copy JPG (Joint Pictures expert Group) image storage JPEG lossy 80% non-archive (web!) GIF (good! interchange format) image storage LZW lossless 15% nasty 256 colour only PNG (portable network grahpics) image storage fancy LZW lossless 22% archive copy WIF (wavelet image format) image storage waveform mathematics lossy 95% proprietary FIF (fractal image format) image storage fractal mathematics lossy 90% proprietary PCD (Kodak PhotoCD) image storage fancy JPEG lossy 70% archive (but not perfect copy) FPX (Kodak Flashpix) image storage sortof JPEG / PCD mix lossy 80% non-archive web apps
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:52:31 +0200 Florian Rist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I totally agree, I suppose the best long term back up media are MODs. But the continuing existence of suitable drives is the problem there. Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. Etched on titanium is probably worth a few aeons, at much higher cost. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:37:58 +0700 GeoffreyJakarta ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm doing some trani scans which are underexposed [how dare I!] and having a hell of a time digging out the detail in the shadows. This detail is also somewhat brown. I have tried doing multiple passes -8 infact at 2700 dpi. I also have a tramline problem in these deep shadow areas. Are the censors damaged? No, not damaged. These sorts of horribleness are revealed when you try and use a scanner beyond its capabilities. You are exposing behaviour which would normally be hidden 'below' the black point, and then amplifying the defects by boosting contrast. Basically, if a sensible black point doesn't allow a decent scan you are stuffed. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 22:01:28 -0400 Jim Snyder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ZIP works by actually packing the data into empty space. As a result, the size does not vary as much, but is lossy. AFAIK Zip and LZW (as found in compressed TIFF) are fundamentally the same algorithms. Neither are lossy, both substitute shorthand codes for recurring patterns of data. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:39:35 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For negatives, I believe it was Ian Lyons who said that calibrating the SS4000 and SilverFast with an IT-8 slide also had benefits for negatives. I don't know why. But I can certainly see how information from an IT-8 slide could be used to characterize the scanner's deviation from some norm so that software could improve (make more consistent) negative scanning as well. For example, if IT-8 calibration finds that the scanner's red channel has a weak response when scanning transparency film and then makes an appropriate correction, then it seems the red channel gain would have to be boosted just as much when scanning negative film in order to get a normal scan. This is speculation on my part. Yes. What you are actually achieving via IT8 calibration is a set of corrections for the CCD's response to a variety of dye densities in different colours. This remains valid so long as the dye set is close to that used for calibration. C41 and E6 dyes are the same family, and Fuji and Kodak E6 are basically similar. Agfa seem to use rather different dyes (TBH I haven't tried any of their newer films), and Kodachrome is utterly different. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 23:05:45 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Which brings up another point: Why is SilverFast shipping a three year old IT-8 slide? Aren't they supposed to be replaced every year to insure their accuracy? I've not seen this said anywhere before, so long as it is stored sympathetically I wouldn't expect significant deterioration to be that rapid. But Kodak production is dated according to 'runs' which last for several years, the date on the slide isn't the date the slide was exposed and processed but the edition it belongs to. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: =?iso-8859-1?Q?IT8=20Calibration=20was=20Re=3A=20filmscanners=3A
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:15:55 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For the purchase price of Vuescan it might be worth trying with the SS4000 just to see how much difference calibration really makes? It occurs to me to wonder how much difference IT8 calibration on a film scanner makes? Vuescan is based on IT8 calibration, but it's hard-coded into the program and not something the user can do for their individual scanner. IME differences between examples of the same scanner are very small, so this is not a significant downside. However Ed did comment a while back that, as you'd expect, there's more variation at the budget end of the market. Paradoxically, cheap scanners would benefit more from individual characterisation. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: flatbed for contact-sheets
Tomasz, Thank you for your clarification. I am not surprised by your findings. Do you have any experience with the Umax PowerlookIII? It has a specified dmax of 3.4 and a full 8x10 transparency hood is available. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: flatbed for contact-sheets Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc wrote: Are you saying your Agfa Arcus seems better worse than the Epson scanners??? The Epson 1640SU also has a dmax of 3.2 and higher resolution than the Agfa. You shouldn't look at specs only. Take a look at scan from those both scanners. My conclusion is that Agfa Arcus 1200 has much more dynamic range, less noise in shadows and is significantly sharper. My Epson 1200U also doesn't keep proportions of the image - when you scan a circle with Epson you get a very slightly oval shape. It shows, especially in direct comparison. But I have also observed that neither Epson nor Agfa are good enough for scanning negatives. The denser parts of the emulsion are too big a barrier for the CCD elements of the scanners. It results in lack of details in white areas. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Flo wrote: On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. Cautionary note: I have a (ferro)magnetic tape cast-recording of Chicago that somehow got too close to a degausing agent (probably a radio speaker). All the tape that was exposed (that part between one roller and the next, not covered by plastic) is missing any resemblence to music. Fortunately, I can sing, hum, or whistle my way through Chicago to cover the lost music--but I somehow doubt that I could do the same with lost photo-data. Any questions? Best regards--LRA From: Florian Rist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:20:06 +0200 Hi Bob! I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. There are various MOD standards and some of them a older than CDR. All over the world MOD jukeboxes have been used and are still used to store and archive digital data. MODs are definitely more reliably than CDRs because the data is stored in a complete different way. On a CDR the data is stored by changing the optical characteristics of an organic dye. This dye will grow old an fade out some how just like film. On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. cu Flo _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. Also, not wishing to be a smart @ss, how many people still have record players ? It's 17 years (I think) since CD first arrived and I suspect I would have to go to London to buy new vynyl. They isn't an awful lot available when you get there either. Being a nation of Audio freaks there are still quite a few specialist retailers who will sell you a deck, but the numbers are dwindling. I suspect film use will be minimal in 20 years. You will still be able to get a scanner so do I think film is a good backup for failed CDs. Scanners in 20 years may in fact get more off the film despite some deterioration. What we all need to keep in mind is whatever we use to archive our digital files is that we need to check the data periodically and transfer to new technologies as these come available AND keep separate backup systems. I am using 2 different brands of CDs with a copy on each one in Sussex one in Yorkshire (250 miles away - although separate buildings should generally be sufficient). I also have the slides to fall back on. I haven't as yet checked the CD's since recording but every few years you should check they are OK. Hopefully any problems discovered early can be recovered from the other copy, using a better reader or by a specialist company. Your data should be stored in as controlled an environment as you can reasonably manage. Mine are in the middle of the house under the stairs where there is least change in temperature and indeed air in general. There are no nearby electrical or magnetic equipment of any kind. As technology becomes obsolete you should transfer to new formats and media. This is usually not as painful as it sounds as the new technology is usually much cheaper, faster and has much greater capacity. Steve
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. Does anyone know how common this is in the general population (or even just the male population)? I'll have to look that one up. I *think* it's more common in men than women, but I don't remember the numbers. Maybe the hospital library has an appropriate text somewhere... I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. My father once tested all the people in a publishing company's art department after he had so many disagreements over colour balance. It turned out that several were colour blind and had no idea they were; but then it was back in the 70's. I agree it's intriguing. But I don't remember seeing figures on how many people with colour perception problems are in professions where it's an issue. Another one of those surveys it would be interesting to take - if you could. :) I had a friend at school who was red-green colourblind. I don't remember ever meeting a woman who was colourblind. Rob
Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: In that case, I guess you could say that the bikini bottom was the ultimate IT-8 calibration tool! No - the ultimate would have been if she was still wearing it! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
filmscanners: OT: Color perception (was: IT8 Calibration (was: etc
Art wrote: I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. I thought the same thing. I've looked at the photos of several of these color deprived photographers, and it's astoundingly good!! Apparently, this disability can be an asset. :-) I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. The last time I went to an art museum (2-3 weeks ago) I probably should have wondered the same thing. I've long suspected that Critics have perception disabilities, not to mention a certain amount of brain damage and extensive external edema of the ego. ;-) Maybe if enough people with this condition demand more objective color control we'll all benefit from easier to use color management. From evidence I've seen, this isn't an unreasonable suggestion. Impractical, perhaps. :-) Bottom line is: Color Perception is slightly different in every living being. Painters (somewhat more than photographers) hope that there are others with similar perceptions; photographers at least work with recognizable subjects, in most cases. But Color *is* Subjective...it's only Objective when you work with computers--and as yet we're not terribly sure how objective that is! If you say something's blue, I'm bound to take your word for it--if you'll take my word for red. Better to put it out there, IMHO, and let the audience decide. :-) Just another $.02's worth. ;-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Rob wrote: Presumably you meant 14GB. :) Funny I was just reading about DVD-RAM and DVD-RW last night and they were only talking a max of 4.7GB per side. Yes, you're right as usual, Rob. It was a case of Numbers Overload for me. Too many numbers in the same PC World article, none of which I could relate to. :-) One thing in the article I didn't mention--which is significant, at this stage of the DVD game--is that there's questionable compatibility beween various DVD burners; stuff written on one can't necessarily be read by another. This would indicate that DVD archiving isn't yet ready for Prime Time. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
In a message dated 08/07/2001 12:40:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, not damaged. These sorts of horribleness are revealed when you try and use a scanner beyond its capabilities. You are exposing behaviour which would normally be hidden 'below' the black point, and then amplifying the defects by boosting contrast. Basically, if a sensible black point doesn't allow a decent scan you are stuffed. Regards Tony Sleep Could this be what is buggering Art and his new SDII? Asking for more than the scanner is capable? I also have a new SDII and seem to get some nice prints from scans. Of course, I don't know what I am doing yet. But I would think blowing up a scan 2-300% would show the uglies from the scanner. I understand pushing the limits to see how far you can go but Ed
RE: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data?
Yes, one of the reasons behind me asking the question. The Minolta software is fine for simple adjustments but only enables you to preview on small lo-res scans. I'd much rather work on the full scan in something like Photopaint (What?! someone who doesn't use Photoshop and actually likes Photopaint?! I must be mad!). I'd be interested in knowing what the reasons are for prefering adjustment in the scanning software as opposed to the main paint program. If the actual hardware output is fixed, then surely it doesn't matter which you adjust in - it just comes down to which package enables you to get the best results. Mark I tend to agree with you--if you're going to correct in the image program, what's the point of correcting in the driver program? Or vice-versa? OTOH, not all programs are equal. Best regards--LRA
RE: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? - follow up
First off, my thanks for all the replies and the interesting view points. I was hoping there might be some de-facto standard out there but obviously not! I'd just like to answer some suggestions: 1. Use Film Yes, fine if your film was developed properly in the first place but I have some negatives going back 30 years which have decayed to being next to useless. Also, when I have spent many hours digitally restoring a scan of a badly kept negative, I don't want to lose that work in a hurry! 2. Why is MO more stable than CDR? I don't have any clear cut evidence here except - a: I have heard many horror stories about CDRs becoming unusable over a relatively short period of time (2 or 3 years for example) and having had a fair share of duff burns, I'm not prepared to take the chance unless someone can assure me that long term reliability of CDR is an urban myth. CDR of course does have the huge benefit of being a universal medium and it will take a lot to kill it off. We'll probably be still using them in 10 years time just as we are still using the 3.5 floppy. I'd use CDR if I was 99% confident the discs would last. b: Companies like HP market their MO devices for archival purposes, quoting I think, 50 years media life span. Problem is, they are hideously expensive. 3. Removable hard disk I must admit, this idea looks like the most cost effective solution but hard disks are still vulnerable. Modern drives might be quite tough in terms of impact resistance and other matters but I'm afraid, I hark back to the generation when hard disks were so delicate that if you so much as blew on one, you took out half the sectors. So, having weighed everything up, I think I'll wait until DVD-RW gains some market penetration and see how that looks or failing that, go for removable hard drives and replace them every 5 years or so to keep them compatible with the current standards. It's not ideal but makes more sense than putting your faith in the long term future of a medium which could well be obsolete after a short period of time - or your hardware breaks and you can't get it mended. Thanks again for all the advice - I'm not going to be taking some grope in the dark by buying a MO or DVD-RAM drive in the near future! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Lynn! On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. Cautionary note: I have a (ferro)magnetic tape cast-recording of Chicago that somehow got too close to a degausing agent (probably a radio speaker). All the tape that was exposed (that part between one roller and the next, not covered by plastic) is missing any resemblence to music. Fortunately, I can sing, hum, or whistle my way through Chicago to cover the lost music--but I somehow doubt that I could do the same with lost photo-data. Any questions? Well, you cant compare the to media. It's true both use magnetic effects to store information, but to somewhat different physical effects are uses. I case of the audio the tape recording (or floppy disks) small iron particles are embedded in a non ferromagnetic material. During a recording these ferromagnetic particles are magnetised and the information is stored by modulating the strength of magnetism. The problem is even a relatively low magnetic field can change the this and harm, destroy the data. On a MO(D) media information is stored in a different way: The information is stored by changing the magnetic polarisation of a media, not by modulating the strength of a magnetic field. To change the magnetic polarisation of a pooper media you'll either need extremely strong magnetic fields (no change to reach them by using anything your can usually find at home) or very high temperatures above to the Curie temperature of the material (a few hundred degrees Celsius). Information is written to the MO media by applying a strong magnetic field and heating up a small area on the disk by using a strong laser beam. A small amount of material heats up, the magnetic orientation changes, as the material cools down and the magnetic polarisation freezes. To read out the information again a low energetic laser is used. There are special materials that change there optical specification according to there magnetic polarisation. So, the info is save on MO media, but not on your audio tape. :-) I hope my poor English is good enough to explain these things. Unfortunately my knowledge of the physics behind it isn't very good either. I uses to know these things, when I was studying math and physics a few years back. No that I changed to architecture I tend to forget these things ... cu Flo PS: Hey, isnt any one interested into my nice Maxoptix SCSI MOD T5-2600?
Re: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data?
I think the driver software allows adjustment to exposure, color channel by color channel, and thus provides better correction, especially for negatives. I don't think the actual hardware output is fixed, the final scan is performed after you make adjustments in the driver. Other than color negative reversal, I believe most of the concern about doing corrections in the driver software vs subsequent adjustment in an image editor is addressed by editing 16 bit per channel files. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data? Yes, one of the reasons behind me asking the question. The Minolta software is fine for simple adjustments but only enables you to preview on small lo-res scans. I'd much rather work on the full scan in something like Photopaint (What?! someone who doesn't use Photoshop and actually likes Photopaint?! I must be mad!). I'd be interested in knowing what the reasons are for prefering adjustment in the scanning software as opposed to the main paint program. If the actual hardware output is fixed, then surely it doesn't matter which you adjust in - it just comes down to which package enables you to get the best results. Mark I tend to agree with you--if you're going to correct in the image program, what's the point of correcting in the driver program? Or vice-versa? OTOH, not all programs are equal. Best regards--LRA
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
There was an interesting article in Scientific American magazine six or eight years ago about the problems of storing digital data. They cited, as I remember, three challenges: The permanence of the storage medium, the availability of media-reading hardware, and the availability of software to interpret the digital files. They used the example of someone a century from now finding a CD in an old trunk in the attic with the attached note: Enclosed is the secret to finding the fortune I buried. Even if you could resurrect a CD reader, there would be the problem of deciphering that long string of 1's and 0's. For a number of years, my printing company produced a catalog for a funeral supply business. The main catalog was printed every five years or so, and about half the pages picked-up from the previous catalog (with changes), and about half were new. Over the period from the mid-60's to the late-80's we used the following composition systems, all after the second one incompatible with the previous systems: 1. Letterpress-printed hot-metal forms (before my time) 2. Repro-proofed hot-metal forms photographed and printed offset. 3. Art-boards created by a paper-tape-driven VIP phototypesetter. 4. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium driven Quadex system. (What did it use, 8 disks?) 5. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium-driven Linotype 202 6. Art-boards created by a Lino 300 or 330 using another completely different programming language. About that time we lost the job to another printer, so we didn't have to go through the problem of converting digital files from whatever version of whatever program stored on whatever medium that was popular five years previously. So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have little use for a man who can't spell a word but one way.---Mark Twain
filmscanners: (no subject)
i am just about to order the LS-4000 nikon and the best price i could get was $1695. after all the information from this list and other sources i think this is the best scanner for both slides and negatives. i presently have an LS-1000 and think's time to upgrade and like nikon products. anyone have another suggestions? joanna
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as layers in PhotoShop? Don't astronomers do that sort of thing all the time? Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use separations for Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images. However, I was taken to task on that on the grounds that reproducing color images from separations is quite expensive. I have no reason to doubt that iut is inmappropriate as a general archive, just to be used for the irreplaceable family treasures. Hersch At 10:19 AM 08/07/2001, you wrote: Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
A good question. I can believe people will not be using Tiff files any more in 10 years. However, for longer than that you can probably expect that there will be shareware (and commercial) conversion programs to translate Tiff files to Jpeg5 format, or whatever. You just have to go with the flow... Hersch At 01:09 PM 08/07/2001, you wrote: There was an interesting article in Scientific American magazine six or eight years ago about the problems of storing digital data. They cited, as I remember, three challenges: The permanence of the storage medium, the availability of media-reading hardware, and the availability of software to interpret the digital files. They used the example of someone a century from now finding a CD in an old trunk in the attic with the attached note: Enclosed is the secret to finding the fortune I buried. Even if you could resurrect a CD reader, there would be the problem of deciphering that long string of 1's and 0's. For a number of years, my printing company produced a catalog for a funeral supply business. The main catalog was printed every five years or so, and about half the pages picked-up from the previous catalog (with changes), and about half were new. Over the period from the mid-60's to the late-80's we used the following composition systems, all after the second one incompatible with the previous systems: 1. Letterpress-printed hot-metal forms (before my time) 2. Repro-proofed hot-metal forms photographed and printed offset. 3. Art-boards created by a paper-tape-driven VIP phototypesetter. 4. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium driven Quadex system. (What did it use, 8 disks?) 5. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium-driven Linotype 202 6. Art-boards created by a Lino 300 or 330 using another completely different programming language. About that time we lost the job to another printer, so we didn't have to go through the problem of converting digital files from whatever version of whatever program stored on whatever medium that was popular five years previously. So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have little use for a man who can't spell a word but one way.---Mark Twain
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use separations for Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images. However, I was taken to task on that on the grounds that reproducing color images from separations is quite expensive. I have no reason to doubt that iut is inmappropriate as a general archive, just to be used for the irreplaceable family treasures. Hersch At 10:19 AM 08/07/2001, you wrote: Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle After a certain level of usage it is unlikely that software formats and even (non-obscure) hardware readers will be impossible to find. There is too much information stored on the internet and elsewhere in standard formats to make it likely that these will become unreadable, at least barring the effects of a major depression, nuclear war, or the odd asteroid hit. People often to refer to scientific data which has become inaccessible, but these were made early on with technologies that had limited use. A couple of times recently I've had to recover data from early versions of wordstar and the not wildly successful (but much lamented) outline processor grandview. Even in the latter case I was able to find a free conversion program in a couple of minutes. Moreover, librarians and others are aware of the potential problems and are working on solutions. But of course your major point is well taken. You want to keep your files as easily accessible as possible and take as few chances as possible. John M.
Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help
Remmember that Sony is the only monitor that supports the Trinitron mask, which gives you better image clarity than any other shadow mask technology. The Mitsubishi Diamondtron is also an aperture grill, essentially the same as the Trinitron. I think at one point Sony made the tubes for Mitsubishi. I believe that the Trinitron patents have expired, and Mits now manufactures their own. The ViewSonic SonicTron is also an aperture grill.
Re: filmscanners: OT: Color perception (was: IT8 Calibration (was: etc
- Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT: Color perception (was: IT8 Calibration (was: etc Art wrote: I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. I thought the same thing. I've looked at the photos of several of these color deprived photographers, and it's astoundingly good!! Apparently, this disability can be an asset. :-) As I said earlier my Art O'Level examiner commented Interesting use of colour!. Several people have commented on the wonderful colours, particularly in my inkjet prints and I say I I like them whilst thinking they look a bit samey to me! Anyway I had a look round the web and found these: Colour tests http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8833/coloreye.html http://www.umist.ac.uk/UMIST_OVS/UES/COLOUR0.HTM I loaded the charts in the 1st link into PS and played with the saturation and hue. At between 50-70% on the saturation I can clearly see the difference. I then tested a neighbour and my daughter and found that my daughter had a very mild problem in that she had difficulty seeing one chart - although she did see it. I then tried the different saturations and hue and found that I can clearly see colour differences where normal people can see none or very little. Very odd. Other links: This link is to a program that allows you to say what colour any point on your screen is : http://www.hikarun.com/e/ even if it is completely different to you! These give an explanation of the condition - the first is quite technical : http://www.firelily.com/opinions/color.html http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil/colour.html http://www.delamare.unr.edu/cb/ regards Steve
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Although I haven't used it (some members have/do), PNG probably offers the best compression in a lossless format--according to the chart that Bert posted. Photoshop *does* offer that. Whether the format will be around in 20 years is another matter. :-) Best regards--LRA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:45:24 EDT This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use save as and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger.
Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
Tony wrote: Basically, if a sensible black point doesn't allow a decent scan you are stuffed. There he goes, beating up on us Scanwitters again! ;-) Unfortunately, Tony's mostly right. But it *is* possible to suck a little more light out of a Scanwit by covering the calibration slot with neutral density filter (I've done it, and it gains you about 1/2 a stop), but it messes up your scanner for regular pics for a little while (until you get it sighted-in properly again). I wouldn't do it as a habit, because you're also shortening the life of the lamp by a logrithmic factor or two. Probably be OK if you're an Able-Bodied Mechanic with a good supply of Acer lamps, OTOH--just watch out for fires. ;-) Best regards--LRA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:35 +0100 (BST) On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:37:58 +0700 GeoffreyJakarta ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm doing some trani scans which are underexposed [how dare I!] and having a hell of a time digging out the detail in the shadows. This detail is also somewhat brown. I have tried doing multiple passes -8 infact at 2700 dpi. I also have a tramline problem in these deep shadow areas. Are the censors damaged? No, not damaged. These sorts of horribleness are revealed when you try and use a scanner beyond its capabilities. You are exposing behaviour which would normally be hidden 'below' the black point, and then amplifying the defects by boosting contrast. Basically, if a sensible black point doesn't allow a decent scan you are stuffed. 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: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Tony wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. In Photoshop, when you save as TIF, you will get a dialog re. byte order and a check box for LZW compression. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Very good point! One possible solution would be to keep a version of Photoshop 6, or whatever application you created your archived images with, on your computer. Or to keep your old computer and software next time you upgrade to something faster. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Winsor Crosby wrote: It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. That's a redundancy that I vaguely knew about, but didn't consider. Haven't even heard much about it since I was a kid. It certainly *is* a true archiving method...is it still being done? Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: flatbed for contact-sheets
Bob Kehl wrote: Do you have any experience with the Umax PowerlookIII? It has a specified dmax of 3.4 and a full 8x10 transparency hood is available. If that's the same scanner as a Umax 34X0, my experience is that it's a bit cranky, with toy software. I recently returned 2 of them, and traded the second for a Microtec. If it's not, nevermind. :-) --LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help
My Iiyama is a (Diamondtron) trinitron clone too. You can always tell by the faint horizontal lines around a third from the top and bottom of the screen. Steve - Original Message - From: Moreno Polloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help Remmember that Sony is the only monitor that supports the Trinitron mask, which gives you better image clarity than any other shadow mask technology. The Mitsubishi Diamondtron is also an aperture grill, essentially the same as the Trinitron. I think at one point Sony made the tubes for Mitsubishi. I believe that the Trinitron patents have expired, and Mits now manufactures their own. The ViewSonic SonicTron is also an aperture grill.
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a "Save-as" for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a 24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing that implies a compressed TIFF. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use "save as" and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger.
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a Save-as for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD) Hm, I have many more choices o PS6.0 on a PC. Maybe you have not chosen certain formats during installation. Anyway, I think even if so as you can chose tiff you should also be able to use compression, i.e. after you hit the save button a dialog asks you for the byte order format (little of big endian) and a checkbox where you can chose if you want LZW or not. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
OK, thanks, I found it. The dialog box only appears after you kick off the save and I didn't take it that far when I was doing my testing. I've seen the dialog box before and always ignored the LZW checkbox as I didn't thing that it was lossless and would offer me any thing. My question wasn't a stupid one, I guess, but the operator was! Thanks. By the way, my 113.1 mb file went to 36.8 mb with LZW. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:42:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. In Photoshop, when you save as TIF, you will get a dialog re. byte order and a check box for LZW compression. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help
In 000201c11f04$9a906890$0208d63f@zibzib, Karl Schulmeisters wrote: Remmember that Sony is the only monitor that supports the Trinitron mask, which gives you better image clarity than any other shadow mask technology. I don't think this is still true. I believe that Sony's patents on this technology have now run out, and one or two others companies are now offering Trinitron-type monitors. Of course Sony still own the copyright to the Trinitron name. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Bad CCD elements - was Scan Dual II Bad Elements
Norman Unsworth wrote: How do the bad elements in the CCD evidence themselves? Art replied: snip However, individual pixels or CCD elements can also be defective or miscalibrated. The best way I have found to check for these is to use a slide with areas of darker colors, perhaps even a near black slide will work. You want something that doesn't have a lot of lines or detail in it. This is all very familiar. When I got my Scan Elite 18 months ago these sort of CCD defects were very obvious in the green channel with only very little gamma and white point adjustments. I got it repaired under warranty and it seemed much improved (although not perfect) and generally usable. However, several months later, I started to do some scans of night scenes on Kodachrome 64 which needed the shadow detail boosted and multiscanning to reduce noise. That highlighted some dodgy green channel CCD elements but, more worryingly, a shift in the whole CCD response in longer duration scans. Basically, if the black edge of the frame was returning, say, an average value of 25 in the green channel at the start of the scan, by the end of the scan it might be well over 60! The greater the level of multiscanning, the worse it got so x8 and x16 multiscanning introduced a haze over all the deep shadows across all but the first few pixels across whole frame. Certainly, there was no hint of noise but no detail either.. After many mails to Minolta UK (and the inevitable it's been referred to Japan but they haven't replied black hole), they recently replaced the unit. It, too shows a couple of lazy green channel CCD elements but nothing too bad. It does seem to have slightly more noise generally than my old scanner but, as it was defective, it's rather hard to compare. Anyway, if there aren't too many lazy CCD elements, they can be fixed at the post scan stage relatively easily. (The ones on my Elite seem to be due to poor calibration, rather than being broken, with the black end response in the green channel starting too high hence the green tracks in the deep shadows.) After finishing adjusting levels, curves etc in 16 bit, convert the image to 8 bit. In Photoshop, use the single row or column marquee tool, depending on orientation, to select the offending CCD element. Use Select and Color Range to select just the shadows. Then, in the green channel (or whatever the affceted channel is) adjust the black point in levels to so it matches the neighbouring elements but keep the mid-point slider in the same position. If done well, there is *no* evidence of the lazy CCD. If there aren't too many lazy elements and the scanning exposure is relatively constant, it should be possible to record a PS action to do this automaitically. (Not that I've done this yet!) Of course, assuming that there is a true black reference point in the scan like the frame edge, what would really be good would be a bit of software which took each row (in a 16 bit raw gamma 1 file) and set black point. I know the scanner calibration process should do this but, from the problems some Scanwit and Minolta owners have had, the scanner calibration and/or software just ain't cutting the mustard! Al Bond
filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Does anyone know if the $45US upgrade includes both SilverFast Ai and HDR? Or do we have to spend $45 for each, for a total of $90? SilverFast isn't responding to my e-mails and they aren't answering my questions at their forum site. I think they're busy with their meltdown over serial numbers and faulty passwords. No one seems to be able to get what they paid for, serial numbers don't work, etc. I paid my $45 thinking the upgrade was good for both Ai and HDR, but their download site implies otherwise. I haven't been able to do any downloads because the password and user name they gave me after I paid my $45 don't work. Both of my scanners are off-line right now because I don't want to go through the effort of another IT-8 calibration if the upgrade destroys the calibration. (It did when I installed the SS120.) By the way, the SilverFast download site implies that they'll only upgrade for the SS120 on SCSI, and not if connected via Firewire. Can't get them to tell me if that's true or not. My recommendation would be that no one have anything to do with SilverFast until they get their house in order.
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
i am just about to order the LS-4000 nikon and the best price i could get was $1695. after all the information from this list and other sources i think this is the best scanner for both slides and negatives. i presently have an LS-1000 and think's time to upgrade and like nikon products. anyone have another suggestions? joanna Try www.etronics.com. They have a high rating and LS-4000 ~$1550. I have not ordered from them. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
You might try doing a search at cnet.com for the best price. I'd heard on this list that ecost.com had the best price for a SS120, but when I bought mine I found that pagecomputer.com beat them by a few dollars. Also, ecost claimed they gave free shipping, but if you read the fine print, they charged 2.4 percent for a handling, which was $72 in my case. Pagecomputer only charged $20 shipping and no handling fee. Ecost also wouldn't accept a return unless you could get the manufacturer to certify that the scanner was broken and do so within 14 days. Needless to say, if you bought from ecost, it was your scanner forever. Pagecomputer, on the other hand, had a 30 day return policy, though they still had strings attached. Wherever you buy your scanner from, make sure you read all of the fine print and can live with the terms and conditions should anything go wrong with your scanner purchase. In a message dated 8/7/2001 3:42:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i am just about to order the LS-4000 nikon and the best price i could get was $1695. after all the information from this list and other sources i think this is the best scanner for both slides and negatives. i presently have an LS-1000 and think's time to upgrade and like nikon products. anyone have another suggestions? joanna Try www.etronics.com. They have a high rating and LS-4000 ~$1550. I have not ordered from them. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Roger, Go to PS6 Edit-preferences-saving files and tick enable advanced features. That will give you the extra Tiff file options. Geoff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:44 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a "Save-as" for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a 24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing that implies a compressed TIFF. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use "save as" and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger.
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
After the Save-as command in PS, you should get the attached screen giving you the option of LZW compression. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a Save-as for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a 24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing that implies a compressed TIFF. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use save as and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger. attachment: LZW screen.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Winsor Crosby asked Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as layers in PhotoShop? Yep. See this interesting example: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Lynn Allen penned: Although I haven't used it (some members have/do), PNG probably offers the best compression in a lossless format--according to the chart that Bert posted. Photoshop *does* offer that. Whether the format will be around in 20 years is another matter. :-) The classic question - will it be around. PNG is an open standard and offers a significant improvement for lossless compression over LZW with TIF files. Ive posted this example below, the reason is simple - the mathematics is more recent, so the compressor does better - every time. Will Photoshop be around? Or CD drives, or TIF? In my cupboard I have some 8 inch floppy disks ... but I moved stuff off of these when I saw that their end was nigh - TIF will go this way - as will PNG as will all :) As for support - it wont go away due to its growing use over GIF for non photographic images for web work (better features/ compression than GIF, and no software patent). Most web users dont even notice that an image is PNG - just a bit faster ... RAW TIF: 24532 Kb = 2500x3300@24bit LZW TIF: 20336 Kb = 17% smaller PNG: 16348 Kb = 33% smaller For a folder full of TIF scanned images (LZW) = 469 Megs. The same folder full compressed as PNG = 320 Megs. Two folders of images per CD ... Im no evangelist - just a conservationist :) bert
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Thanks! Andrew Robinson Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: OT: Color perception (was: IT8 Calibration (was: etc
For those of you that are hoping to sell your images all including the colour blind you may like to try the downloads here: http://vischeck.com/showme.shtml I have not tried any of them, but the normal and the red/green color deficit (deuteranopia) examples sure look the same to me. (I checked in PS and they are quite different). Steve
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
In a message dated 8/7/2001 4:37:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roger, Go to PS6 Edit-preferences-saving files and tick enable advanced features. That will give you the extra Tiff file options. Geoff Thanks, Geoff, and to all the others who gave me hints. I have to admit that I've been so busy using Photoshop that I haven't had time to learn how to use Photoshop, if you know what I mean. Now that I've almost got my SS120 medium format scanner working (still waiting on SilverFast to answer some questions) my file sizes are going to get substantially bigger and lossless compression becomes important. Looks like PNG may have an advantage over LZW TIFF for storage, though I understand a lot of older browsers can't read PNG, so it's been slow to reach the web. I'll be doing some experimenting to see which works best for me.
filmscanners: Colour links
have just come across the following that may be of some use to people here. Colour FAQ http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/ColorFAQ.html Gamma FAQ http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/GammaFAQ.html Steve
RE: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Just to add something that might make your suggestion clearer. After selecting the save as, one will be presented with the file format options as Roger suggests. It is only after you select the TIFF option for your file format that the dialog box you are referring to appears. You first have to click on the Save as a TIFF file option before you get to see the dialog box with the LWZ compression item. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? After the Save-as command in PS, you should get the attached screen giving you the option of LZW compression. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a Save-as for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a 24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing that implies a compressed TIFF. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use save as and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone decompression program to get the original file back. In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size becomes larger.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Mitsui has been recommended by Plextor and others. Fuji is on the Plextor list as well and I have had good results with them. Maris - Original Message - From: Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? | What CDRs would be the good quality ones? | | Thanks! | | Andrew Robinson | | Tony Sleep wrote: | | On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | wrote: | | Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to | archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a | | STUFF CUT | | Any advice on this matter gratfully received! | | Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. | | Regards | | Tony Sleep | http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info | comparisons
