[filmscanners] Re: Scanning Overexposed Slides
Bill Fernandez wrote: > My Nikon LS4000 has analog gain controls accessible through the Nikon > scanner driver. I can sometimes turn down the anaalog gain to get > more detail in light areas. Does your software and scanner have such > a feature? > > Don't remember exactly the options on VueScan (have it and use it...) > but isn't there a way to turn the exposure way down (Manually) or set > the brightness to be very low? > The Minolta software (I have the original Scan Elite) has a fixed minimum exposure and blows out the highlights so I have to use Vuescan on these slides to keep the detail. It doesn't lose any highlights but they are very flat and compressed on the actual slide, and hence on the scan as well. Unfortunately, as I am still using PS6, I don't have the luxury of the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS CS. Because the images need a lot of adjustment, it really has to be done in 16 bit so I am limited to the 16 bit tools in PS6. So far, the most promising approach seems to be to change to LAB colour and use a gentle Curves adjustment on the Luminosity channel to shift the highlights back towards the mid-tones and repeat the same adjustment several times. If I try to do it all in one big Curve adjustment, it starts to look nasty very quickly (due to my lack of proficiency with curves rather than any deficiency in PS!). I don't think the recovered images will ever look brilliant but at least my wife might get some mementos of her Spanish trip. Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Scanning Overexposed Slides
Hi, When my wife went on a trip to Spain, a problem with her camera meant that most of her slides were 1-2 stops overexposed. I have been trying to scan in and recover some of the shots but with limited success. Although the slides are very "thin", there is still some detail in the highlights, albeit very compressed. I have used Vuescan to make sure none of the detail is lost and then tried using curves in Photoshop to uncompress the highlights and spread them back into the midtones. However, I still can't get a natural looking result. Has anyone got any tips or suggestions on anything else I can try? Thanks, Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scan Dual IV vs Elite
Berry Ives wrote: > It seems like I have > heard of grain aliasing issues, or somesuch. I am printing at 1440 > dpi on watercolor paper with an Epson 2200. A couple of points. Firstly, the Elite 5400 has a "grain disolver" feature which puts a diffuser in the light path. Going by some review sites on the web, it does make a beneficial difference to the visibility of grain. The down side is that it does extend the scan time. Also, grain aliasing seems to be worse on scanners with a resolution in the 2700-2800 ppi range. Scanning at a higher resolution is reported to be much better. (I can't speak from experience on this as I don't have the Elite 5400, just the original Elite.) Even if the resolution is greater than you need, you can scan at full resolution and then downsample afterwards. This, plus the grain dissolver, should give you much better results than the Dual IV, although it would probably be much slower. Of course, the Elite 5400 also has ICE which can come in handy. Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Test
I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear and I don't get any admin/error messages. This test is just to see if a message with different text fares any better! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Multi Pro, ICE and Vuescan rawfiles
Didier wrote: > I'd like to save the infraredchannel in step1 (64bit file) and then > choose in step2 the right IR filter options for each picture > (None/light/medium/heavy) > > I must have misunderstood something, as it doesn't work for me. > My setup is different to yours (Windows + Minolta Scan Elite + Vuescan 8.0.10) but Vuescan can save my RAW scans with the Infrared channel intact. As it happens, I had just scanned a 64 bit RAW file the other day so was able to use it to test for certain. I found a hair on the raw file and selected each of the cleaning options in turn. As you would expect, hair got fainter on each output as heavier cleaning was selected. Did you create the raw file by putting a tick in the Raw file check box or just by setting the TIFF file type to the 64 bit RBGI output option? And did you have cleaning off when you created the RAW file? Playing around with outputting in 64 bit RBGI format from my RAW file, I found that, if I selected no cleaning option, the alpha channel was retained in the output file. However, as soon as any cleaning is selected, the Infrared channel was amalgamated and the output file had no alpha channel. This seems reasonable enough behaviour for the gamma corrected output. However, I wouldn't expect any cleaning option to have an effect on the creation of the actual RAW file (although I haven't tried) but it could be a bug. So, yes, you should be able to do what you are trying to do! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Moire - Scanners vs Digicams
Austin, David and Arthur, Thanks for your words of wisdom on this! It now all makes a lot more sense. Obviously, Vuescan uses a different interpolation algorithm to the Canon RAW conversion software (and in camera processing), which would explain why both the detail and the amount of moire change if different RAW processing methods are used. Thanks again guys! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Moire - Scanners vs Digicams
Hi folks, I was looking at some 5 megapixel (Canon G5) sample images to get some idea how the might compare against my 2820 dpi scanner. I know I have read in the past that, despite the large difference in file sizes and pixel counts, a 5MP camera isn't as far behind a 2820 dpi scanner as it might seem. Certainly the sample G5 images looked reasonable but, on one image of a house, the fine roof tile details had generated a fairly obvious moire pattern. This is something I have never come across on any of my film scans. Have I just got lucky on my scans or is moire more likely to happen with digicams? Also, does the processing affect this? The G5 image in question was available on the Web as both a camera produced Jpeg and as a RAW file: when I processed the RAW file in Vuescan to produce a 16 bit TIFF and applied edge sharpening in Photoshop, the moire was more noticable than in the Jpeg - but there was also much more fine detail than in the Jpeg. I'm just curious to know why there seems to be this apparent difference between digicams and scanners! Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Bill Fernandez wrote: > I made > using a Kodachrome IT8 target and the ICC Scan software from > profilecity.com I haven't heard of this software. It's not clear from the site (now http://www.chromix.com/profilecity) whether the free software download can work with 3rd party targets. It would be useful if it does as I already have the Ektachrome/Sensia targets from Wolf Faust. Any comments anyone? Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400
David, > Need to replace a Polaroid SS4000. Googling around I see many people > complain that the Minolta 5400 produces fine lines it some scans, > sometimes, with some software. They look very much to me like a dud > pixel in the CCD - a one pixel wide line running the length of the > scan. Usually seen in darker areas. Many people report the exact same > trouble and show images with the same lines. I've had a very similar experience with the original Elite - I got through 4 units before I found one that was generally acceptable! I tried the Elite II as well which was very similar. It seems to be a CCD calibration issue, rather than dud pixel, as the lines only appear in the deep shadows (the highlights/midtones are fine) and will blend in with the adjacent lines with careful adjustment of the line's black point in the affected channel. In other respects the Elite series generally perform well (hence consistently good reviews). I can only assume that reviewers tend not to use very dense slides for the tests or, if they do, don't try to pull out the detail from the deep shadows. Certainly, if you only use negative film, you would never notice these problems. I also tries an SS4000 at one stage. The shadows were very clean with little noise but could not get to the deep shadow details that the Elite could. Minolta seem happy to pull out everything from the CCD, even if it shows up its shortcomings, whereas the Polaroid seemed to aim for a slightly more restricted but more graceful performance. If you are happy with the shadow performance of your SS4000, you might well find that the Elite 5400 meets your needs (even if you have to abandon some shadow detail to get rid of any CCD anomalies). > Maybe this is fixed in a firmware update, maybe not. Who can tell me > more? If the problem stems from individual CCD elements being outside the ability of the calibration to cope with, then updates to the firmware might not help. Certainly, since this has been a common issue with both the Scan Elite and Scan Dual ranges for several years, there doesn't seem to be an easy fix! > From what I've read (on other lists, in other places) this is a > scanner to avoid. I am still tempted by it but would definately have to try it (or find someone in the UK who would be happy to scan some sample slides) before I parted with any hard cash. I am particularly interested in how well the hardware based grain diffuser works in conjunction with ICE. With the Elite (and Elite II) at least, ICE did cause some minor but definite loss of detail. Another consideration is DOF. I haven't seen anything at all about how the Elite 5400 performs in this respect (or whether the new Nikons are any better than their predecessors). Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400 scan Elite Tests
> The Canon scans > still seems slightly sharper, but with a few levels of sharpening on > PS, there is no real difference. I am quite fussy about the sharpness > of my slides and the test slide I chose is very sharp under a 10x > loupe. Maybe I should try the manual focus thing on the Minolta? I've seen some posts that, for some reason, the default on the Minolta software is to have auto focus switched off! Also that the manual focus gave even better results than the auto focus. I assume that autofocus would be switched on in Vuescan by default but I don't know whether (or how) manual focus has been implemented in it. Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: Multiple Pass Scanning on the SS4000
Ed wrote: > I've been thinking about working on this, but it never bubbles up > to the top of my list. The SprintScan 4000 has so little noise in > the dark parts of scans that there's no real need for multi-pass > scanning. This keeps this feature from bubbling up to the top > of my list. Would this be a SS4000 specific feature? The other scanners which can only do multi- pass multi-scanning (and suffer more from noise) would surely benefit from this as well. Al Bond
filmscanners: Vuescan for Minolta Elite II
Ed, Any news on the Minolta Elite II loan? If your comments on the Minolta Multi Pro are any indication of the Elite IIs likely performance (after all, it has the same theoretical OD with its 16 bit output), it should prove a worthy competitor to the LS-40. Conversely, the Minolta Elite II casing looks pretty similar to the Dual II (which has had reports of varying CCD quality and performance) and has the same optical resolution so it will be interesting to see the degree to which the internal components have been uprated. Please let us all know your thoughts in due course! Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
Rob, You might want to look at the Voigtlander (Cosina) range of lenses. Although these are primarily LTM manual focus rangefinder lenses, they have produced some models (I think the 75mm and 90mm) in SLR mounts as well. By all accounts, these lenses may not be quite up there with Leica/Contax glass but they are pretty close and at a much lower cost. I'd be very surprised if they didn't resolve detail way above the 2700ppi limit of your LS-30. Maybe someone on the list with one of these lenses can comment? Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a scanner
Mark Otway wrote: > Right, having decided that price and performance-wise, the Nikon > Coolscan IV is the scanner for me, here's another good question. Bearing > in mind I'm in the UK, where's the cheapest place to buy it from? So far > I've found Dabs Direct (www.dabs.com) who are doing the Nikon for £499 + > VAT, and Jessops (www.jessops.com) who are surprisingly competitve (£599 > including VAT). > The question is, are there any other web-based > shops which are doing the coolscan any cheaper? Speedgraphic (speedgraphic.co.uk) sell it for £579 inc VAT. Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 Rebate extension
David Hemingway wrote: > Polaroid Canada has recently adjusted the pricing to their dealers to > reflect the US price after rebate (without the rebate). I am told you > should see final pricing within less than $50 to the US price after > rebate. Don't tell me after all these years you might actually buy a > Polaroid scanner :) David David, There seem to be relatively few Polaroid stockists in the UK and all the advertised prices seem to be very high compared with the current USA prices. Are the UK (or general European prices) likely to fall? Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: focusing-scan elite
Jules wrote: > Scan Elite users, I would like to hear from you on your thoughts on this > scanners sharpness. Hi. I wasn't sure whether the fixed focus on the Elite (or rather the DOF) would be enough when I got mine. So I used a test based on a suggestion by Tony Sleep. Get an old film leader, blank slide etc and gently score a fine cross on it with a scalpel or razor blade. Do both vertical and horizontal crosses both at the centre and edge of the frame. You could even do this on both sides of the film if you want to see whether the focus favours one side rather than the other. Certainly, as far as I can tell, the focus and DOF seem OK. Al Bond
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: > 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
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
Herch wrote: > However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a > set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering. Rafe wrote: > I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about > the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a > better image, all around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V, > and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi. I recently decided I needed a smaller "take it with me at all times" camera as I simply wasn't using my SLR enough and bought an old Minolta CLE rangefinger. Nice sharp lens (with the option of using other Leica or new Voigtlander lenses as well), small and light - and great fun to use. I'm sure there is already digital kit that can get close to the quality but not without much more bulk - or without making a bigger dent in the bank balance (even allowing for the cost of a scanner). And a lot of classic camera gear holds its value more than consumer grade digicams... Don't get me wrong, I like new toys as much as anyone else and have been eyeing up each generation of digicams that come out but nothing yet has the right mix of compactness, quality and value to mak me bite. Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Maris wrote: > Windows interprets your embedded profile as an sRGB image and adjusts the > colors accordingly. > > You will have to change your Windows "Display" setting (in Win98SE it's > "Control Panel-Display-Settings-Advanced-Color Management") if you want to > modify this. Now I'm confused - I thought that this page sets the monitor profile rather than default system colour space? Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Re:
Stuart, > Hi guys -this is a message for anyone in the UK who is wiling to do me a > favour . Did you get any volunteers on this? When you posted your request I was about to go on holiday so thought there was no point in replying at that time. But I'm happy to help if I can. I have a Minolta Scan Elite, which has ICE. If you have any damaged slides, it's always interesting to see just what ICE can manage. Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Is my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 faulty?
Robert, > I wonder if you would mind taking a look at the > images I've posted on this web page... > > <http://users.bigpond.com/robert.groom/ss4000/> > > and then letting me know whether your conclusion > is the same as mine. A rather obvious question but have you tried scanning the same slides in different orientations? I thought I had similar problems with some colour fringing with my Minolta Elite but the direction with the fringing remained the same whatever the orientation of the slide. I tried back to front, upside down and even sideways (which meant not all the slide was scannable) and the offending parts of the image always looked identical. As far as I can see, the effects of optical abberations in the scanners lens, CCD bleeding etc would change with the orientation of the media. Looking at the slide on a lightbox with a x20 hand lens I could detect the fringing on the original which I hadn't noticed until I'd scanned it. If this caught me out with a 2820 dpi scanner, I guess the 4000dpi of the Sprintscan would make it even more noticable. Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a Minolta Scan Elite
Hi Martin, > After much research I have decided that a Minolta Scan Elite I've got one. It's a nice scanner. > I was all set to go to Jessops (who had it listed at £699), however they > now tell me it is obsolete and they no longer sell it. > Firstly, is it really obsolete, or is it just Jessops that have stopped > stocking it. It is still listed on Minolta's web site and they don't > appear to have anything new with similar features, so I am guessing it is > just Jessops. Maybe there is some confusion at Jessops: they have been discounting the previous model, the Scan Speed, for some time and perhaps they got mixed up with that. But it certainly isn't listed on the Jessops web site now. (Having said that, with the new Canon and Nikon scanners on the way, I'd be surprised if a replacement for the Elite wasn't too far away.) > Secondly, can anyone recommend somewhere where I can go to try one before > I buy it. I live in Cambridge, UK. I'd prefer somewhere local, but am > prepared to travel as far as London if necessary. Difficult. Jessops don't seem to carry all their stock in all their branches and, even where they have a reasonable stock range, they don't always seem to have demo scanners. There are some London based shops that hire scanners, which might be an option. At least then you could try the Elite and, if you like it, buy it from one of the cheaper retailers. The mail order company Speedgraphic (www.speedgraphic.co.uk) do the Elite for £629 or £669 inc SCSI card, plus £3.90 P&P. It might be worth checking availability with them before you go further, in case the Elite really is going to be hard to get. Let us know what you find out! Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: AcerScanwit but also generic calibration
Jerry Oostrom wrote: > I have a 2720 that does not function properly. The problem is probably > background noise in the CCD. During calibration only the responsiveness to > the white light is calibrated for each CCD pixel. I think you can compare > it to determining the whitepoint for each pixel. I would like to have > added the blackpoint too. (I.e. read the response from the CCD with no > light reaching the CCD). Of course this would imply changes to the > firmware if at all possible. > > I mailed Ed Hamrick on this issue and he agreed after several mails that > the error I was seeing is indeed a CCD response issue, but he could not > help me with added functionality to calibration (blackpoint calibration) > as the hardware of the scanwit does not offer a means yet to do so. I think blackpoint calibration would be useful on most scanners. The CCD in my Minolta Elite seems pretty good but in the very depths of the shadow range there are a few CCD elements (particularly in the green channel) which seem to return slightly too high a base blackpoint value compared to the rest. The result is faint tracks if the shadow detail is really pulled up. (Oh, and it's not dust in the lightpath, as the effect is still there if I scan a piece of opaque card in the slide holder, and is not a problem once out of the deep shadows where the CCD response seems much more even.) I know Ed said that (at least with the Scanwit) blackpoint calibration might not be possible because of hardware/firmware limitations but why rely on the scanner's capabilities to do this? Why not just do one calibration pass for the white point and then an (optional) second pass with a piece of opaque card in the slide holder to calibrate the black point? Low tech maybe, but it should work. Certainly, with the Elite, Vuescan's normal white point calibration isn't foolproof. It does prompt you to remove the media holder before continuing but doesn't (cannot?) check that this has been removed. Leaving it in does the calibration no good at all! Seriously, though, if Vuescan requires manual intervention to remove the holder before doing the whitepoint calibration, why not trust the user to be able to put an opaque target in for blackpoint calibration? I know Ed will want to minimise potential user error but the blackpoint calibration could be an advanced option which has to be actively switched on every calibration. (And could even include a "health warning" for improper or sloppy usage.) Maybe it isn't as simple as that (if the CCD blackpoint/whitepoint response and adjustments for anomalies are not linear) but I would still expect it to be better than having no CCD blackpoint calibration at all. Just a thought :) Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed Hamrick wrote: > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. The suggestions sound good (especially the preview zoom). There's another thing I would find useful (although I might be a minority of one). I still find tweaking the white and black percentages a bit hit and miss and end up doing this in Photoshop. Would it be possible to have a droppers to select white/black points, which would then show as an appropriate percentages? I know that this wouldn't be of much use to those users who primarily batch scan but I thought I'd mention it. It may just be that I've just not worked up a very good workflow yet! Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan long pass mode
Jerry Oostrom wrote: > Another, complex approach would be to apply scouring algorithm in the long > exposure scan to the sections with pixels exposed to the limit (one/all > channels). That is, if scouring algorithm can be applied that way. The > pixels that were exposed to the limit would still have weighing factor 0, > but the adjacent pixels could have their normal weighing factor, whatever > that is. I was thinking about this as well. I suspect that pixel bleeding may occur with some CCDs even before the highlight levels reach 255,255,255. (I did a scan of a hole in a piece of card with my Elite. The normal scan did lose some edge detail but a scan at the shortest scan duration showed card fibres at the edge of the hole.) So an option might be a combination of 3 scans, a short scan to retain highligh details & minimise/identify pixel bleeding, the normal scan for the majority of the pixel data and the long scan to minimise noise and maximise shadow detail. The short scan would have to act as a mask to determine which highlight detail is "real" and not bleeding, could provide detail for any of the highlight detail compromised by bleeding in the other 2 scans and, for midtones and shadows affected by bleeding, help determine which of the other scans provides the best data. Of course, I'm sure it's much more complicated than that and I wouldn't have a clue how it could all be coded! Certainly, my own experiments with masks in Photoshop have never managed to get rid of blooming/reduced contrast around highlights. Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...
David Hemingway wrote: > Ice will not correct physical damage to film David, Come now, are you being deliberately provocative? :) I find ICE invaluable on film which has become scratched or mould damaged. Just to redress the balance, here's the link again to my page with some examples: http://www.greenspace.ic24.net/scanner.htm Sure meets my definition of correcting physical damage :) Al Bond
filmscanners: Sharpness test
Hi,
I recently tested the sharpness of my Minolta Elite using Tony's suggested technique
of scoring a cross into the emulsion of some blank film with a scalpel blade and
scanning the cross at full resolution (2820 dpi).
It looks reasonably sharp but, like all such tests, I have nothing to compare it
against!
I attach a jpeg of small section of the scan, obviously without any sharpening
applied.
If any of you have done this test, how does it compare with your results?
What's also interesting is how hard it is to get a really fine score even with a
scalpel
blade and how big this looks at 2820 dpi! And that, where my scans look a bit soft,
it
looks like its due to lack of sharpness in the original rather than the scanner. A
bit
depressing but at least I know that a 4000dpi scanner wouldn't benefit me - not
without
much more practice first! :)
Al Bond
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
File information ---
File: cross.jpg
Date: 14 Dec 2000, 19:45
Size: 42729 bytes.
Type: JPEG-image
cross.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Language (was Monitors)
Bob Armstrong wrote: > Decimat- is the (Latin) past participle stem of decimare from the Latin > decimus (tenth). Currrent general useage is 'to kill, destroy or remove > one in ten of.' Loosely it is taken to mean destroy a large part of - as > in 9/10ths. My own feeling is that the loose meaning is becoming more > commonly used. What is your source of 'mate - man' in decimate? This is all getting a bit (OK a lot) off topic but I thought I would dig out my Cassell's New Latin Dictionary. The verb decimare (older form decumare) had a general meaning of 'to take a tithe' but also the specific Roman military meaning used by Cornelius Tacitus and Suetonius Tranquillus of 'to take every tenth man for punishment, to decimate". So 'mate - man' looks a bit of a red herring. Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: RE:
Teresa Lunt wrote: > One is a Umax Astra 2400S with transparency adapter, and one > is a Minolta Scan Speed filmscanner. > > Both of these say in their technical specs that they can output more > than 8bits. > > I use lasersoft with the Umax flatbed and just the Minolta s/w with > the Minolta. In this case, how do I get the extra bits into Photoshop? Teresa, I can't help with Umax/Lasersoft but the preferences options in the software for Scan Speed (which should be similar to my Elite software) contains an option for colo(u)r depth. This has to be set to 16bit. You can either twain driver from within Photoshop to get the data directly into Photoshop or the standalone driver to save the scan as a 16 bit TIF file, which then can be opened at your leisure in Photoshop. Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: New server/glitches/resend request.
> The previous listserver address, [EMAIL PROTECTED], is now > defunct. And I thought the silence on the list was a mark of respect! Al Bond
RE: Help- 48 bit vs 24 bit RGB
> > Is it better practice to save it > > uncorrected at the higher bit depth and make all changes in PS or to > > make the gammma corrections in the scanner software and save as an 8 bit > > file? > > It depends on which you prefer. Both methods should give you equivalent > results, since you are applying the gamma correction, in both cases, to > the 12 bit data, not to the 8 bit data. The results should be identical only if the scanner software does it's manipulation on the 12 bit data. Not all software does. For instance, the Minolta Elite software allows 8 or 16 bit data output. However, the curves, levels tools etc in the software only seem to work on 8 bits, even if 16 bit output has been selected. As soon as any significant adjustment has been made, the result is a 16 bit output file with gaps in the histogram (and ultimately posterisation)! Outputting the file with no adjustment and then making the same adjustments in Photoshop gives a much smoother histogram and colour. > Unfortunately, unprocessed can mean different things, as the raw data may > or may not be subject to the setpoints. It depends on the scanner and > scanner software. Indeed. The Elite software allows 16 bit output (which already has gamma correction and colour space conversions carried out) so may only need the black/white points set and levels/curves tweaked in PS to get to the end result. It also allows 16 bit linear output, which is gamma 1 in the scanners own colour space. Even this isn't an absolute. Ed Hamrick mailed me off-list on the differences between the Minolta software and Vuescan: "I think I found the difference between the Minolta software and VueScan's controlling of the scanner. The Minolta software exposes the CCD colors with RGB times of 1.00:1.05:1.07. VueScan uses RGB exposure times of 1.70:1.62:1.00. This uses more of the dynamic range of the CCD for most films, but it significantly changes the colors that are captured." And of course, just to make it even more confusing, all the manufacturers do different things! The bottom line is don't take anything for granted :-) Al Bond The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
RE: got my SS4000
Frank Paris wrote > However, I can't say that they are any sharper than the HP, which > is either a testimony for the HP or it says something about the > effectiveness of my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and Nikon 28-70mm f2.8D ED > IF AF-S lens. Or that the HP applies some sharpening during scanning. That would mean you aren't really comparing like with like. Maybe someone (Art?) who knows more about the HP can comment. Al Bond The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Vuescan6.2 and Minolta Dual Scan II
Al MacKenzie wrote: > Vuescan6.2 seemed to work much better for bringing out shadow detail than > the Minolta software. Odd. I find the opposite with my Minolta Elite. > Why do the scans appear darker than what appears visually in the slide? I find this, too, on my Elite. Make sure the "Autoexpose" option for slides is set. The Minolta software suggests that it is only for underexposed slides but I find some properly exposed slides benefit. Without it, the Minolta software does not increase exposure so some of the dynamic range at the top end may get wasted, to the detriment of the shadow details. (I know the Dual II has relatively low shadow noise but it still makes sense to move the shadows up out of the danger area if you can!) If autoexposure (in either the Minolta software or Vuescan) is on and working properly, highlights should be getting close to 255,255,255. If they are (and bringing the white point down looses too much highlight detail), but the image still looks too dark, then monitor calibration/gamma settings may be the issue. (I think Ed may have suggested this already.) Al Bond The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: questions
glenn yeldezian wrote: > >3. i am trying vuescan. my photoshop rgb setup is bruce rgb. my color > >space in vuescan is bruce rgb. i do a 48 bit rgb scan. i open the .tif > >file in photoshop and get the Profile Mismatch screen. this i don't > >understand. Bob Shomler replied: > Which vuescan release are you using? Releases prior to 6.2 did not embed > a color profile, so you will get the profile mismatch box and then need to > select Don't Convert. I downloaded VS6.2 eager to see this work as well. However, on my system (Win98SE and Minolta Elite), whatever space I choose the scans are always bringing up the profile mismatch box, saying that the image does not have an embedded profile. I've deleted the preferences file but that makes no difference. Anyone else getting this problem? (Scans saved from PS with an embedded profile work as expected when opening so it seems to be a VS not PS problem.) Al Bond The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
