[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Karl, Here's what MR wrote in his test: So, what I did was to apply what I considered to be the most appropriate amount of USM to both files. As it turned out I had to apply about 1/3rd more USM to the 6X7 scan than to the 1Ds' RAW file. This is consistent with my previous experience with both formats. Andre - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II Because it isn't true. per-pixel laser printed images on traditional wet process are better. Life expectancy is better on wet prints etc. Why do it on the best equip? Well because the 1Ds is the best digicam you've got out there, and the luminous landscape guy basically picked a test that pits the best digicam with its best rendition capabilities against a film process that isn't optimal. Fgzmple, he USMs the digicam image, but not the scanned film -despite the edge transition limits of imaging sensors, he picks an image that will be least likely to artifact on the digicam etc. etc. - Original Message - From: Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II It has been said over and over that scanned film printed on an inkjet printer is at least equal or better than traditional wet darkroon prints. Why bring this into the equation. And why do it on the best equipment you can find. Seems to be an admission that digital is producing better prints? Andre - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II There have been quite a few less biased analysis than the crusade luminous-landscape has been on for about 2 years. One of the better ones I have linked at my work machine (photog doesn't YET pay all the bills :-( ) and I'll repost it later this PM. Essentially what the person did was to shoot a highly detailed landscape on film vs digital camera, and zoom in on particularly high details of each image and look at the results. His conclusions are that 16mpixels in a 35mm format are equivilant to the best grain resolution - something the 1Ds approaches but doesn't reach. Some other ways of making comparisons: 1) take the film image, enlarge it via standard 'wet chem' methods using the best equip you can find. - scan the result at the highest resolution you can 2) compare the 1Ds output, similarly enlarged, to the result. Film still wins - just don't tell Luminous Landscape. - Original Message - From: Nagaraj, Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II Andre wrote: This one will spark heated debate... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml I am not a professional and have not done any tests, but heard read about this. There has been a great deal of discussion going on about same article in Pentax Discussion Mailing List. I agree with the some of PDML members that this is comparison of Scanner v/s Digital Camera. I am curious to know about other ways of comparing the DSLRs and Film/slide. I think you can compare them both theorically and practically (means comparing the output. Example: Print). In practical way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are converted to some other form(Print) and then compared. This is not a direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than using print as for comparison, I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing it. Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] JPEG2000 Paul
Paul, I have half-heartedly tried to research JPEG2000 without reaching any useful conclusions. Can you give a reference or a potted summary with such useful but not readily findable info like what is the outlook for JPEG2000? how good is it? is it only available for sale or are their free versions? if only for sale - how do they expect it to become universal? etc. It seems stupid to have standards which are not free because they never become standard. The slowness of uptake and limited public knowledge seems to support this view. But maybe JPEG2000 is the exception? Is the lossless compression worth having, i.e. what is the compression? Lastly, given you obviously have JPEG2000 (as a PS plugin?), why do you save your final images as old jpeg rather than jpeg2000? Thanks, Julian At 08:30 03/02/03, you wrote: For masters, I prefer JPEG2000 over TIFF, for the obvious size reasons. But once I've done an edit, I save as 8bpc lightly-compressed JPEG (PS quality setting 12). Julian Canberra, Australia Satellite maps of fire situation Canberra and Snowy Montains http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/cbfires/fires.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Digital for magazine publication?
I worked for Corbis back in the days when they were first setting up their labs, and while I wasn't directly involved with the lab work or the image taxonomy, a good friend of mine was the guy who designed their initial scanning labs. The room was a restricted room, ventilated with prefiltered air and kept at positive pressure (like the silicon fab labs are). They used drum scanners, and tons of 'air' (compressed helium if I recollect correctly). Even so, there was a long arguement as to what resolutions were 'useful', and they initially chose - primarily for cost/performance reasons, to scan at 2kx3k for 35mm format, and to scan larger formats at 2kxXk where X was the appropriate fractional multiplier. Reasoning was that for the majority of image reuse, 2k would let them be at magazine quality. They likely are scanning at larger bit depth now that storage costs have come down, but the goal always was price/performance - with the idea that for something really critical - say a billboard in Grand Central Sta NY, they would bill at a rate that covered the rescan. So while on one hand, the big guys CAN scan better - you can do almost as good at home. EXCEPT that for important shoots, the final scan IS done at higher quality. - Original Message - From: Brian Yarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital for magazine publication? Very simply, if digital really was the problem these art directors claimed, whose buying all those royalty free photo CDs for hundreds of dollars each? How is Photodisk and the like remaining in business? Some of those disks make for some pretty expensive computer monitor wallpaper, and they'd also be pretty boring to look at. Art and Fellow Listreaders: The big RF companies use drum scans and offer tech support. I think the problem is that the mistrust isn't for the concept of digital, it's for the idea that us little guys can even come remotely close to the quality the big companies offer. See if you can beg or borrow a disc or two from PhotoDisc, Corbis, Brand X or DigitalVision (to name the biggest players) and compare the scan quality to what our home scanners can offer. Sometimes we measure up, and sometimes we don't. Brian Yarvin Stock Photography from Edison, NJ http://www.brianyarvin.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 16 vs 8bit scans
Ed, What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments in 16 vs 8bit, As a note, when you do tonal curves using your scanner driver, the curves are done to high bit data, even though you save it as 8 bit data. That is why I suggest that tonal curves be done in the driver (if the tools available there are decent enough), and saved as 8 bit. Now, if you are scanning color, even doing tonal adjustments to 8 bit data can be fine, provided the adjustments aren't too drastic. For BW, do not do tonal adjustments to 8 bit data. Also, would a native 8bit scan using NikonScan be as good as if it had been converted to 8bit in PS7? Technically, there is no such thing as a native 8 bit scan, unless the scanner A/D was only an 8 bit A/D. You said your scanner used a 14 bit A/D, so I'd say it's a toss-up. Do one of each with the same scan, and see which one you like better. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 16 vs 8bit scans
I'm new to scanning, using a Nikon 4000ED on PC. I've been scanning in 14bit mode, doing some cleanup and adjustments, and resaving as 16bit TIFF masters. What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments in 16 vs 8bit, and does it matter for final quality either way? Also, would a native 8bit scan using NikonScan be as good as if it had been converted to 8bit in PS7? Experience shows that eight bits is fine... Hi Paul, Please be careful when you claim that. For color, and with your caveats, that is correct...but for BW, that is not. Tonal manipulations should not be done to 8 bit data. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000 Paul
The slowness in adopting JPEG2000, from what I've read, is because no major browser supports it yet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] JPEG2000 Paul Paul, I have half-heartedly tried to research JPEG2000 without reaching any useful conclusions. Can you give a reference or a potted summary with such useful but not readily findable info like what is the outlook for JPEG2000? how good is it? is it only available for sale or are their free versions? if only for sale - how do they expect it to become universal? etc. It seems stupid to have standards which are not free because they never become standard. The slowness of uptake and limited public knowledge seems to support this view. But maybe JPEG2000 is the exception? Is the lossless compression worth having, i.e. what is the compression? Lastly, given you obviously have JPEG2000 (as a PS plugin?), why do you save your final images as old jpeg rather than jpeg2000? Thanks, Julian At 08:30 03/02/03, you wrote: For masters, I prefer JPEG2000 over TIFF, for the obvious size reasons. But once I've done an edit, I save as 8bpc lightly-compressed JPEG (PS quality setting 12). Julian Canberra, Australia Satellite maps of fire situation Canberra and Snowy Montains http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/cbfires/fires.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000 Paul
Most open standards documents cost money, but only to cover the costs of administering the standardization process. I bought the C++ standard when it came out--it was $85. A standard that needs to be licensed generally costs wy more than that, because the patent holder is trying to make money off it. Good examples of expensive ones are the CD recording standards, and the I2C serial interface (both of which I believe come from Philips). One thing that may be slowing up its acceptance is that it may be much harder to write the software to do it than the old JPEG. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Julian Robinson Which I guess is because it is a for sale standard, not free?! I mean, if it works, and if it were **freely** available, I assume that browsers would incorporate it like a shot. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000 Paul
I wonder if anyone makes a decoder that spits out the lower resolution data first, and then improves it as it gets to the higher resolution data. The LuraWave plug-in doesn't do this, because it's only intended for loading a file into Photoshop, not display it on the fly. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Meier The good thing about j2k is that one image file can represent multiple resolutions, quality levels, etc. So if you are hosting a website you can first send a lower resolution image and then improve the quality and size of the image without having to resend the data. You could also start with one locality and then add more to the picture. This is much more advanced then with jpeg. I am confident that within a few years j2k will overtake jpeg although the later is much faster. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
