[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Money quote ... Yes, here we go again. You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular favourite, preferred or religious route. I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that I couldve done better on the scan .. well: 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality scanning I did ... Of course, The 8 Bitters are right, 8 bit is fine. But I dont think so. See above. bert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving scans - DVD vs CD
Mike Brown wrote: He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value based on extended temperature, pressure humidity storage. What else could he say??? well. we were actually finalizing this technology back in the year 1899, and we've been secretly testing the disks since then, and they were just fine until a couple of years ago, when the data started to become damaged and error prone ??? Any longevity claims of any length are based upon accelerated aging methods, which, as good as they may be (its all we have) may be very far off in either direction. Based upon our testing using 400 degree F conditions, to simulate heat damage over many years, we have determined these disks will melt after 75 years That's the problem with these tests, the only real method to test for age related changes is be letting things age. Any other method makes a lot of assumptions. Art Mike Brown wrote: I was lucky enough to attended IFA, the Berlin consumer electronics exhibition, last week managed to speak to a guy at Verbatim about their disks and longevity. (They're claiming 100 years on their write-once discs.) He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value based on extended temperature, pressure humidity storage. He mentioned that humidity is a particular problem - time to buy sealable storage units silica gel maybe (or is silica gel a contaminant???) Verbatim claim that their Super AZO dye makes a big difference (I notice that some Verbatim CD-R disks in a local store were Azo and others Super Azo). He went on to say that DVDs are better than CDs because both top and bottom surfaces are coated with plastic - reducing the risks from humidity and atmospheric contaminants. Interesting conversation but I'd like to see some lab results! Mike Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Paul D. DeRocco wrote: The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've only seen samples on the web (some full file size) but I seem to recall seeing more aliasing with the CCD/bayer interpolation pattern than with the Foveon. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing 16 bit scans. If you have the time to work with that large a file, and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. I wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available (not that I can see any manufacturer wasting their time, but it seems there will allows be a buyer somewhere out there (insert appropriate P.T. Barnum quote). I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water, and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital scanning on this list, who are impressionable, I see my job here is simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is basically without merit and that they need not follow a path that just wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want to). Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their scanning. ;-) Don't confuse me with the facts, when I'm trying to win an argument... Art PS: If your negs are that fragile you'd be much better off finding better film stock and labs than worrying about 16 bit captures. Robert Logan wrote: Money quote ... Yes, here we go again. You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular favourite, preferred or religious route. I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that I couldve done better on the scan .. well: 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality scanning I did ... Of course, The 8 Bitters are right, 8 bit is fine. But I dont think so. See above. bert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. I've only seen samples on the web (some full file size) but I seem to recall seeing more aliasing with the CCD/bayer interpolation pattern than with the Foveon. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg Look closely at just about any close to horizontal or vertical line, e.g. the white border around the ONE WAY sign. (Diagonals seem to survive (see the finer wires) but the fat wires are a jaggy mess (those are jaggies, not twisted pair cables).) At first glance there seems to be a lot of detail, but it's all aliasing artifacts. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin, I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and reduce the size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exactly, but to claim that you need to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Wanted Polaroid SS 120 Glass Film Holder in the UK
Can anyone in the UK please help. I am trying to purchase the Polaroid SS 120 Glass Negative carrier to enable me to scan Xpan negatives. I am still waiting for Polaroid UK to come through with one, and thought I would ask the group if anyone knows of one that might be for sale? If I end up with two then that is not a problem. Regards Eric (Liverpool UK) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Bob, I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400! Regards, Austin Austin, I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and reduce the size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exactly, but to claim that you need to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. -- -- 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: 8 bit versus 16
From: Bob Frost I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and reduce the size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. You might also consider a JPEG2000 plug-in, because it can do 16-bit compression. I get 5X-10X with no visible artifacts. LuraWave's is very good. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the resolution? I couldn't tell. So I went to another digital review site www.imaging-resource.com, and I used the Comparometer, and took a look at the image of the house and the musicians, both which contain numerous angular lines within them. I used the Canon D30, since it has a similar resolution, and I was unable to see anything drastically difference between them in terms of this particular defect. I was somewhat surprised by the red/green color fringing on the Sigma, however, but that may have more to do with the lens, or even the software. If you can show me an A:B comparison of a camera of similar resolution that shows this problem clearly, I'm all eyes. BTW, I am not stating that your are wrong, you may well be correct. It is just that without having a comparison of another image technology to compare it to, I cannot identify that the probelm is unique to the Foveon chip. Art David J. Littleboy wrote: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. I've only seen samples on the web (some full file size) but I seem to recall seeing more aliasing with the CCD/bayer interpolation pattern than with the Foveon. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg Look closely at just about any close to horizontal or vertical line, e.g. the white border around the ONE WAY sign. (Diagonals seem to survive (see the finer wires) but the fat wires are a jaggy mess (those are jaggies, not twisted pair cables).) At first glance there seems to be a lot of detail, but it's all aliasing artifacts. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
-Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the resolution? I couldn't tell. So I went to another digital review site www.imaging-resource.com, and I used the Comparometer, and took a look at the image of the house and the musicians, both which contain numerous angular lines within them. I used the Canon D30, since it has a similar resolution, and I was unable to see anything drastically difference between them in terms of this particular defect. I was somewhat surprised by the red/green color fringing on the Sigma, however, but that may have more to do with the lens, or even the software. The red/green fringing in the original image is clearly chromatic aberration in the lens, because it is prevalent near the edges of the picture and not in the middle. This image is quite a bit sharper than anything I can get with my 10D. However, that I assume is due to the diffuser over the sensor, since I'm sure my 17-40mm L lens isn't the limiting factor. Too bad the diffuser can't be flipped in and out, since the extra sharpness would be nice in situations where moire isn't an issue. I think this particular test image (the Nicholson St. building) looks really good. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
on 9/12/03 5:00 PM, Paul D. DeRocco at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the resolution? I couldn't tell. So I went to another digital review site www.imaging-resource.com, and I used the Comparometer, and took a look at the image of the house and the musicians, both which contain numerous angular lines within them. I used the Canon D30, since it has a similar resolution, and I was unable to see anything drastically difference between them in terms of this particular defect. I was somewhat surprised by the red/green color fringing on the Sigma, however, but that may have more to do with the lens, or even the software. The red/green fringing in the original image is clearly chromatic aberration in the lens, because it is prevalent near the edges of the picture and not in the middle. This image is quite a bit sharper than anything I can get with my 10D. However, that I assume is due to the diffuser over the sensor, since I'm sure my 17-40mm L lens isn't the limiting factor. Too bad the diffuser can't be flipped in and out, since the extra sharpness would be nice in situations where moire isn't an issue. I think this particular test image (the Nicholson St. building) looks really good. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Sigma sent me their demo disk. I printed an image of a flower taken with the Sigma Fovion. At 8x12, it looks terrific. Of course, there are no straight lines in it. At 12.5 x 18.5, it is still quite nice, though it is less sharp. Of course, printing 12x18 from a 35mm neg is going to show some significant loss of sharpness too. One reviewer of the Sigma thought there might be some clipping of highlights going on, if I understood him correctly. Forgot where that review was. I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1 DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it. They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip should be coming in perpendicularly, and not obliquely: film grain is fine with oblique light, but chips are not, they say. So they built the camera from the ground up as they said, optimized for digital and not trying to use 35mm lenses. Anyone bought it yet? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote: I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1 DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it. They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip should be coming in perpendicularly, and not obliquely: film grain is fine with oblique light, but chips are not, they say. So they built the camera from the ground up as they said, optimized for digital and not trying to use 35mm lenses. Anyone bought it yet? Hi Berry, It's not on the market yet. I believe the release date is a few weeks away. Later, Johnny __ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. While I agree if one is talking about producing archive masters but not with respect to working files, this agreement is tempered by an understanding that Austin may be right that the visability and usefulness in terms of practical manifestations of the image are restricted by constraints such as the limitation of the human eye ( a constraint which is not relevent with respect to creating archive masters where one is attempting to capture as much raw data about the image as one can so as to have a large enough universe of data to handle future improvements in applications and hardware devices that might be able to make use of the additional data in performing their functions) and by the fact that current scans and the files derived from them ( archival or working files) may be rendered non-usable by future advances in technology which renders the reading of said files obsolete, resulting in their production being an experiment in futility. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Logan Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Money quote ... Yes, here we go again. You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular favourite, preferred or religious route. I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that I couldve done better on the scan .. well: 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality scanning I did ... Of course, The 8 Bitters are right, 8 bit is fine. But I dont think so. See above. bert 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: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Johnny Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote: I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1 DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it. They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip should be coming in perpendicularly, and not obliquely: film grain is fine with oblique light, but chips are not, they say. So they say. One wide angle comparison, film vs. 1DS using the same lens, I saw had the 1Ds being a lot sharper and recording a lot more detail than the film, although that may be more a matter of film flatness than anything else. Since all the wide angle lenses for 35mm film SLRs are already radical retrofocus designs, they're already as good as it could possibly get in this regard anyway. So it sounds like marketing-speak snake oil to me. So they built the camera from the ground up as they said, optimized for digital and not trying to use 35mm lenses. Anyone bought it yet? Hi Berry, It's not on the market yet. I believe the release date is a few weeks away. It's on display in Tokyo. Seems a nice solid well-built SLR not a whole lot different from a D100 or 10D. The 1Ds, on the other hand, has a much better viewfinder (a real joy to look through) than any of the affordable cameras, but makes my Mamiya 645 ProTL feel like an Olympus PenF by comparison. An amazingly heavy, awkward, bulky camera. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
At 10:02 PM -0400 9/12/03, Johnny Johnson wrote: At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote: I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1 DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it. They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip should be coming in perpendicularly, and not obliquely: film grain is fine with oblique light, but chips are not, they say. So they built the camera from the ground up as they said, optimized for digital and not trying to use 35mm lenses. Anyone bought it yet? Hi Berry, It's not on the market yet. I believe the release date is a few weeks away. Later, Johnny A person on the Leica User's Group mailing list has one; he's got connections to Olympus. Unfortunately, the pictures he's posted so far have not been of the type to enable critical examination of the benefits of the Olympus' optical designs. -- *Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography Design /###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
