Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
Hi Mark ... I shall try moving the scanner and let you know... Sounds like dark noise from the CCD's, but could also be electronic interference. 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 Yes this is strange then...and no, I'm not using grain rediction. I had better check everything again, but I'm sure the settings werte normal. another check though. Thanks anyway.. Geoff 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: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:53:05 -0400 Does anyone know if the $45US upgrade includes both SilverFast Ai and HDR? I think it does but I've always been confused about HDR. My Polaroid 5.5 upgrade allows me to save raw scans, that's HDR ain't it? (Scan Type: 48 Bit HDR Color) I'm confused because when I bought (note, bought, not bundled!) SilverFast I received two serial numbers, one for Ai and one for HDR. I seem to remember putting the HDR serial number in once, but never since I've used an update and 5.5 hasn't asked either. Of course as HDR is doing a raw scan the NegaFix will be of no importance. I don't want to go through the effort of another IT-8 calibration if the upgrade destroys the calibration. Remove your Polaroid (SilverFast) folder from your Photoshop Plugins folder and put it some where safe. Then install the 5.5 upgrade - which is a full version and does not update the old copy. You now have two copies, version 5.whatever and 5.5. You will need to calibrate for 5.5 but it will not have any effect on your old version. Come to think I had both versions in my Plugin folder at once, no problem. My recommendation would be that no one have anything to do with SilverFast until they get their house in order. They sorted my serial number/password problem within two hours of my calling. You need to speak to the Florida office. They are helpful, despite everything! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to 14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data! AFAICT, there's no clear-cut winner for storage--maybe the answer is to but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I agree with Lynn that there are no clearcut winners. However, I am willing to hedge my bets and say that the broadest acceptable standard is likely to win. To this end, since I am not in a rush, I am willing to wait a few months until the DVD+RW format hits the market, read the reviews, then make an informed buying decision. For more on DVD+RW, see the following sites: http://www.dvdrw.com/ http://www.sony.co.jp/en/Products/DataMedia/products/DVD_plusRW/index.html I believe the DVD-R, DVD-RW will be the winner. Reasons: - The DVD-RAM used to be with Mac, but now it's the DVD-R. - DVD+RW is from Sony Philips, but seems Betamax II, even Sony is now incorporating CD-R/RW DVD-R/RW real SuperDrive in their top line of Vaio. (Maybe only in Japan now) - Sony is shipping PCVA-DRW1 external 1394 real SuperDrive that is CD-R/RW and DVD-R/RW in one. (Maybe only in Japan now) - Apple Sony are HeavyWeights. For 120 film at 4000dpi @48bit, you have to select one the DVD-???, so help please: The said Sony PCVA-DRW1 is arround USD600 in Japan but not sure. Before I get one, does someone happen to know if there is any 3rd party software driver for it both on Mac Win so I can have such real SuperDrive for both my platforms? According to Sony it only supports Sony VAIO pcs. BTO your Mac G4, get the Sony, buy the software, you have two SuperDrive for the price of one (and the Mac's don't do DVD-RW), I believe many have both Mac Win on the list. That seems to be the solution for me now. JM Shen
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Andrew wrote: What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Kodak and Sony seem to be leading the pack. I've heard mixed reviews about Verbatim, and while I use them for CD-RW, I'm hesitant to commit archive stuff to them. I've had zero trouble with Kodak, but then the discs are only a year old ATPT--not an iron-clad test. :-| Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: OT: Color perception (was: IT8 Calibration (was: etc
I tried the web page viewer. Very interesting how my images look after the conversion. Some are just as I normally see them and others are very different. Some are disgusting and some are actually better! Hmm... I guess the problem is deciding just how accurate this program is. I mean how easy is it to compare the so called colors that I see, when using this program, with a person who really does have color blindness? I would guess that they can't look at the modified image and say it matches the unmodified image. Or can they? --James Hill Freelance Photographer Mebane, NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:29 PM Subject: 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: Astrophotographs
Herm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 'White Point' seems to be important, Ed wrote me a similar mail, he suggested 0.001% (One quick test yesterday was far better than the grainy, partly over-exposed scans I did before). It was probably the only setting I had not yet tried. Yes, play with that.. just use the scan memory button and examine the results in Photoshop.. you want a histogram that is not clipped anywhere.. The 'Levels' Tools in Photoshop turned out to be helpful, but the real killer was the 'multi-pass' option Vuescan offers! I usually scan 8 times now, and the image quality is greatly improved. Not yet to a level where I would jump in the air, but it's getting better. Did you check out my website? I did, quiet nice! I use a lot of E200 for astro photography. I will assume the original slides or negs are not overexposed and something is messed up in the scan. The slides are ok, they look good on a wall: I.e. NGC7000 is visible, the 'Mexican Bay' is clearly visible. There is no exposure time adjustment possible with the Scanwit, what are you fiddling with?.. I try to set the exposure time. No idea what it does to the scans. Is everybody sure that it does nothing? perhaps you have set the brightness setting too high.. normally I set it between 1 to 2, mostly 1.5 with semi dark slides. I just keep it at 1, but that would be another thing to play with, I'll try. If you want send me a screen capture of the histogram of one of your slides.. plus a copy of the Vuescan ini file with the settings you used. Thanks for the offer. For the time being, I'll try some more fiddling with the parameters. I'm still far away from knowing what I do. -- Jan Exner · [EMAIL PROTECTED] · 0x9E0D3E98 · http://www.jan-exner.de/ Zicke Zacke - Hühnerkacke Aktionsfront gegen pseudo-intellektuelle Signaturen
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
I, too, eventually gave up. I was wasting so much time and frustration trying (a) to get passwords out of them; (b) trying to make those passwords work and (c) trying to get any sensible help from Silverfast. Fortunately my software was bundled and so did not cause me any financial loss but it drove me into the Vuescan fold. Silverfast, when it works, has a hell of a learning curve. Why struggle with that as well as Photoshop? Raw scan into Photoshop in 16 bit and work from there. John Anne John Mahany New Forest U.K. please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
It turns out that it is impossible to create lossless compression scheme that does not cause some files to expand in size. A set of random files always expands. There is no way to encode the random information that does not take up at least as much space as the original file. Because of this, any image that contains lots of random noise tends to compress much less than a high quality image with little noise.
RE: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
It turns out that it is impossible to create lossless compression scheme that does not cause some files to expand in size. A set of random files always expands. There is no way to encode the random information that does not take up at least as much space as the original file. Because of this, any image that contains lots of random noise tends to compress much less than a high quality image with little noise. What about Genuine Fractals compression which claims non lossy compression and small file size. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
John Anne Mahany [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:37:33 +0100 trying to get any sensible help from Silverfast This is their phone number, they are helpful, call after 2 pm UK time! 00 1 941 383 7496 Silverfast, when it works, has a hell of a learning curve. Why struggle with that as well as Photoshop? The same reason you'd buy fresh quality ingredients when cooking! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Sleep wrote: Etched on titanium is probably worth a few aeons, at much higher cost. I understand that someone is working on a method of storing data on titanium disks. However they don't store it in true digital format. They etch a microscopic image of the actual document onto the disk, using a laser; rather in the way a laser prints on paper. Basically is a form of microfilming, but in an even smaller size. The advantage is that it can be read with an electron microscope, even if all knowledge of the software and codes are loss. That is just as well, as they expect it to have a life of up to 1m years! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen 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. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
I called the SilverFast U.S.A. office and got help. (They're slow with answering e-mail.) They said you have to pay $45 to upgrade Ai and another $45 to upgrade HDR. Also, they charge to upgrade each scanner you have. The exception is for Polaroid since they use one piece of software for both the SS4000 and the SS120. So a full SilverFast upgrade would cost me $90 and I could use it with both scanners. Of course, the smart thing to do (which is what I always try to do) is to upgrade only HDR and not Ai. Then you can make use of the negative profiles in the upgrade to HDR and not use Ai at all for image processing. (If you don't know what Ai and HDR are, see my last paragraph.) SilverFast is having problems with passwords and usernames for the upgrades. I was given a new one over the phone (don't know if it works yet) but they never answered my e-mail about it. SilverFast has a problem with doing an IT8 calibration, at least on a PC. It gives an error message that says you haven't aligned the frame correctly around the IT8 target. Ian Lyons says it works OK on his Mac. SilverFast is working on the problem and asked me to send them a screen grab just before the error message pops up. For those of you who don't know what Ai and HDR are, they are two components of SilverFast and can be purchased separately, thought they use basically the same coding. Ai talks to your scanner, gets the image, allows you to adjust levels and colors, and then stores it as a 24-bit file. It can also be used in "dumb mode" where it gets the image from the scanner and stores it as a 48-bit "raw" file without doing any modifications to the data at all. HDR doesn't talk to the scanner at all. The only thing it can do is get the data from a file (such as the one Ai created in "dumb mode"). Then you can adjust the image in 48-bit mode and, when done, store it as a 24-bit file for use in Photoshop or whatever. So an upgrade (which adds negative profiles) need only be done to either Ai or HDR, depending one which one you want to use for color correcting, etc. In a message dated 8/8/2001 12:39:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:53:05 -0400 Does anyone know if the $45US upgrade includes both SilverFast Ai and HDR? I think it does but I've always been confused about HDR. My Polaroid 5.5 upgrade allows me to save raw scans, that's HDR ain't it? (Scan Type: 48 Bit HDR Color) I'm confused because when I bought (note, bought, not bundled!) SilverFast I received two serial numbers, one for Ai and one for HDR. I seem to remember putting the HDR serial number in once, but never since I've used an update and 5.5 hasn't asked either. Of course as HDR is doing a raw scan the NegaFix will be of no importance. I don't want to go through the effort of another IT-8 calibration if the upgrade destroys the calibration. Remove your "Polaroid (SilverFast)" folder from your Photoshop Plugins folder and put it some where safe. Then install the 5.5 upgrade - which is a full version and does not update the old copy. You now have two copies, version 5.whatever and 5.5. You will need to calibrate for 5.5 but it will not have any effect on your old version. Come to think I had both versions in my Plugin folder at once, no problem. My recommendation would be that no one have anything to do with SilverFast until they get their house in order. They sorted my serial number/password problem within two hours of my calling. You need to speak to the Florida office. They are helpful, despite everything!
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen 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. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
filmscanners: Re: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Title: Re: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster I bought on Sunday. 8/5 and couldn't upgrade the demo. I e-mailed for the passwords (including the scanner model, OS, language and serial number_ the first 3 are required to get the right password). I had an answer within 4 hours. The upgrade includes quite a bit of added functionality. I have had to pay for upgrades that were far less of an improvement functionally (ref. almost any Microsoft upgrade in its first, buggy, iteration). I also get the impression that LaserSoft is a relatively small operation -especially on the retail end-but they've always managed to work out the kinks which seem to occur when they introduce a significant upgrade. I have also noticed that their passwords are case sensitive and very specific to the individual piece of software you are trying to download- I sometimes have had to enter the passwords 2 or 3 times until I get it right. I agree that having to recalibrate after every upgrade is annoying, but this may be a spillover from the commercial roots of the program. I've read of people at service bureaus, etc, who recalibrate monitors scanners weekly. 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: Good neg stck on Scanwit
No, what I meant was - I can *easily* slap a good transparency in and then print off a pin-sharp, grainless 11 x 8 at 300 dpi. But with a negative, I would normally spend time ensuring the print was free of grain, by the usual blurring of layers, etc etc. I agree that you can get very good 11 x 8's, and larger, off negatives with a 2700dpi scanner. But for me anyway, it requires more work and care. I was also taking into account that the enquiry seemed to be coming from a publishing point of view, so I imagine his standards for output are going to be high.. So, I do agree with you, and I'm sure your prints are great! mark t At 09:25 PM 7/08/01 +1000, you wrote: Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Really Mark? You can't get a good enlargement to A4 at 2700dpi? That really surprises me - larger prints less so, although I've printed A3 from a neg scan out of the LS30 on my Epson 1160 and it looked OK. :-7 I'm not boasting. Far from it. I'm just surprised that you say you can't get good prints to A4 off negs. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Sorry to be late chiming in, but a few options I haven't seen anyone recommend are commercial digital archiving, or commercial media storage. If you have your images in digital form, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find a data storage company to archive it for you under controlled conditions, with multiple site backups. The other option might make more sense to someone like me, who lives in a big media city (Los Angeles). Quite literally a stone's throw from my front door is a media storage warehouse, kind of like those storage lockers one rents to stash old junk, but this place specializes in storing recorded media (film, tape, paper, etc.) under temperature and humidity controlled conditions. Anyways, it seems like these options make sense for anyone who has valuable storage needs, either electronic or originals (or for that matter, electronic originals). Leave the detail of media safety to professionals. Just a thought. Pat - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:05 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. 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 _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
Check Shopper.com. Priced in the mid $1,500 but often out of stock. B H always a good source with competitive pricing. There you go Henry - a free one!
filmscanners: Nikon 8000
For the past few months I have been checking with BH in New York City to inquire about the availability of the Nikon 8000. Each time I have been told maybe in July, etc.. The other day I was told ...we don't know when the units will be available. Additionally, they will not take an order for the machine. Apparently the 8000 is available somewhere--but where? I wonder why BH doesn't have the 8000 in that it is such a large volume photo store--probably the largest in the world. Could it be that BH believes or learned that the 8000 has problems? If that is the case, could they have decided not to carry it until whatever the problem is straightened out--if there is a problem at all? They do have the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 in stock and I am tempted to buy it instead of waiting any longer for the Nikon 8000. Any knowledge or thoughts about the availability and/or the seeming unavailability of the Nikon will be most appreciated. Peter
