[filmscanners] RE: Thumbnails looking flat
Well, I did simple comparisons saving the same file in four versions: Adobe 98 RGB with embedded ICC profile; same without profile embedding; sRGB (converted from Adobe in PS7) with profile embedded; sRGB without embedding the profile Opening them in Win XP image viewer revealed the best appearance of all achieved by sRGB with profile embedded (though the visual difference between the latter two isn't very significant). Perhaps XP unlike the previous OSs is able finally to manage ICC profiles while rendering the image by OS ? (Frankly, I doubt though). Yesterday I examined the images I talked about and after some trial tweaking in PS7 (following reading and learning image processing tools offered by this software though PS7 book I just purchased) I begun to realize that there might be additional variable in the equation which in fact contributed mostly to the lack of contrast and saturation in my images. The pictures seem to have noticeable coolness (not so obvious bluish cast) like one caused by haze and cool lens rendition. Once I was able to tweak the blue channel a bit with Curves tool this bluish curtain was removed revealing good contrast and contributing to saturation. I also recalled that just prior to that shooting taking my camera out of the bag, the UV filter has became fogged considerably due to heavy local humidity so I had to remove it for the whole session. The lens itself is known for excessive coolness color rendition so I think that was the reason for my confusion. A while ago I decided to switch the UV filter on this lens for Skylight which would supposedly compensate much better for that, but was lazy to do it contemplating about dumping the les itself for another one. Anyway, it's apparently possible to correct the images in PS for that so I hope soon to enjoy their real appearance. Thanks for your advices. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Thumbnails looking flat As I said, web browsers (at least under Windows--I don't know about the Mac) don't do any color management. They just give the RGB data to the video display. This means that the data are interpreted as though they were in a color space defined by the monitor profile. My monitor profile is very close to sRGB, and indeed I understand that sRGB was designed to be comparable to a typical monitor. My LCD has an even smaller gamut. I doubt the original poster's dullness problem comes from the conversion from Adobe RGB to sRGB. If you're looking at the images on a typical monitor, then those extra colors that Adobe RGB contains aren't visible anyway. If an image really contains those colors, then the ICM engine may indeed be desaturating all colors, rather than clipping them (that's what perceptual rendering intent means), but not that many images really have such saturated colors in my experience. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Joe It's my understanding the sRGB is the narrowest RGB gamut available in PS's default color space options. I know that Adobe RGB is wider, and so it is clipping some colors in moving from one to the other. Perhaps this is causing the dullness. Is the concensus RGB color space for web display of jpegs sRGB? If that's the case, I can't see any real reason why, aside from overcautiousness. 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: Thumbnails looking flat
Yes, thanks. Of course, the scans are sharpened (if necessary) prior to Save for Web, but I was talking about color flatness (perhaps can be considered as lack of saturation or contrast). Other web site I looked at featured really punchy thumbnails (as well the full-sized images) being very colorful and pleasing to see. My original scans are looking good in this respect, but something is wrong after they being saved for web usage. Oh well, really impressed by your lovely site. Good work. BTW, I noticed your thumbnails are indeed the same dimensions as I do but looks way better in terms of colors and clarity. However I noticed their size is in range of 6-15kB while I strive to keep them as small as 3-4 kB. Perhaps this is something to do with my problem ? How do you save you thumbnails (though Save for Web or just regular save in PS while resizing to the targeted size) ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Thumbnails looking flat For each image I create thumbnails at 180xXX or XXx180 and the actual picture linked to it at resolution close to 800x600. The same as on my web site photo galleries Any ideas for the reasons for that dullness ? Have you applied an Unsharp Mask? however they are saved as GIF files instead of JPEGs. Does it have something to do with the issue ? The thumbnails on my websites are JPEG's and in my opinion they are not dull looking... Henk de Jong The netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~hsdejong/burma http://www.xs4all.nl/~hsdejong/nepal 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: Thumbnails looking flat
This is correct approach indeed. I follow this rule as well. I built already (and continue actually to do it) some image archive where the images are stored in their final condition thus after sharpening. The web gallery utilizes the images from this archive thereby eliminating the need for additional sharpening (as I think). Perhaps the better approach would be using fresh scanned images duplicating image for archive-targeted editing (smallest Unsharp Mask amount if needed) and web processing sharpening the original image more. Unfortunately, the second approach is impossible for the images from current archive (have no spare several weeks to rescan this stock), however, the next scan run waiting for me (around 400-500 slides) will be subject for this approach. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Thumbnails looking flat In fact I apply unsharp mask routinely after scanning (not for all the images though - only these needed), so I do not do it again for images prepared for web (thumbnails and 800x600). Rule of thumb is that sharpening should only be applied as the last step in image processing. Do you think it is necessary to increase the amount of Unsharp Mask as the image is getting smaller ? I never use sharpening within VueScan or afterwards on the output file. I always use sharpening only as the last step after resizing and before saving the image. I suspect probably there might be something inherent into Save for Web processing of the images to reduce the sizes further downgrading the quality in some way. I'll try regular resize and Save instead to see the difference. Better try an Unsharp Mask as the last step before saving the image :-) With kind regards, Henk de Jong 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: Service/cleanup for Nikon LS-30 in the UK?
Thanks, I'll check it myself. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Service/cleanup for Nikon LS-30 in the UK? I wonder whether this procedure should work on LS-40 as well. What do you think ? If it is built in the same way, I presume so, but I'm not familiar with that scanner. 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: film scanner
Art, thanks for your observation, I if you intent to advocate the SS4000 for lack of ICE3 you couldn't. Perhaps I didn't' get your mood right, but in my original posting I didn't mean to blame Polaroid for absence of these features. Some people do like it some not, it depends. The Polaroid doesn't need to prove itself - it already did it gaining very good reputation. However, I was speaking for me I find ICE and GEM usefulness for my stuff. I cannot boast by sterile environment in which my originals are kept, although strive to tailor them carefully, but there are dust and scratches here and there (seem to be unavoidable) and then ICE really helps saving me a lot of time which I don't have either. Everyone makes his own decisions and choosing particular things doesn't mean unappreciating others. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner I'll let Howard speak for himself, but I think he stated what he meant. I too have relatively unhanded slides, which do not get scratched with my processor, (finally! ;-)) and also don't have embedded dust or dirt, in general. Also, something Howard didn't mention is that the SS4000 scanners make very good use of the diffused cold cathode lighting, which very much limits the amount of surface defects that appear in the scan. Further, Polaroid supplied a free plug and and separate scratch and dust filter which is pretty effective once you learn how to use it, for the dust that does show. This uses a very different and more effective method of repairing dust and scratches than the Abode dust or scratch filters do. Until recently, anyone could download it and use it on any image (it is done to the scan, not prior to it), but I guess they realized it was something that they wanted to restrict to just Polaroid scanner owners, so you now need a serial number to get it. ICE/IR cleaning is much more of an issue with badly handled film or if you use a Minolta or Nikon scanner, both of which emphasize these surface defects considerably. I know of many users of Polaroid SS4000 and SS4000+ (and the Microtek equivalent) scanners and the vast majority would like to have ICE but do not find it a necessity for most applications. Few, if any, have told me they bemoan making the purchase because it lacks ICE. It is truly necessary with Nikon scanners, and a burden to be without on the Minoltas. Of course, with the SS4000 et al. you get that same lighting advantage with black and white film and Kodachrome as well, while ICE does not work at all with real silver halide BW and some Kodachrome, leaving one with a good deal of spotting work with the Nikon and Minolta scanners. ICE is a great concept. It makes the Nikons, with their LED lighting source, functional, (owners of previous non-ICE Nikon versions told Nikon in no uncertain terms that if they didn't do something about the emphasized dust, dirt and scratches, they wouldn't be selling many more scanners)... It makes production scanners work well and quickly (it is used in many commercial scanners) and it fixes things like fungus and fingerprint damage which are difficult if not impossible to repair. It allows you to be a little less careful in your film cleaning prior to scanning. But, a well designed cold cathode lighting source and considering the cost of the SS4000/+ and its other features (and the black and white film ability without a lot of spotting) make it fine for many without ICE. I don't know how much the ICE features cost in hardware and licensing, but the Minolta Dual II without it costs $600 CAN less in Canada, literally half the price of the Minolta Elite II which has ICE, a slightly better bit depth and firewire... same resolution. People need to decide which features are most important to them, when determining how to get best value from their scanner. GEM is almost unnecessary with the SS4000/+ et al units due to the diffused lighting, (grain is emphasized by grain aliasing in lower res units and by certain lighting designs) and ROC is a separate plug in anyway, if one feels the need for it. Art Alex Zabrovsky wrote: Howard, you obviously meant you don't miss ROC feature rather then IR cleaning (ICE) since the originals are all susceptible to dust regardless of being old or new and can be scratched right away from the processor. Otherwise, although really enjoy ICE cleaning and GEM in many cases I also haven't had an opportunity to try out the ROC not having old faded out stuff (my photo experience isn't longer then 5 years so far). Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner can anyone tell me if they've actually
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
BTW, about Web exhibition: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? I jus approached the step of building web gallery as part of my soon-to-be web site, so would appreciate any hints ... Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage (to prevent unauthorized download for commercial usage or quality printing). I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S Schwartz Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening Re sharpening: What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be the very last step? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. 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] RE: PS sharpening
Thanks Anthony, appreciate your help. I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, but as I infer from your explanations this cannot be considered as common practice, so the target is under 800x600. However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and machines you anticipate that they will have. Designing for unsophisticated Web surfers with slow connections and small monitors is different from designing for seasoned surfers with broadband connections and huge monitors. As a general rule, keep in mind that most people have 800x600 screens in 24-bit color, with dial-up connections of 40 Kbps or so. Thumbnails are fine, if they are very small (read: highly compressed) and not too numerous on a single page. I used to use them, but as the number of images increased, it started taking a long time just to download the thumbnails, so I dropped them--but much depends on your site design. As for full-sized images, something under 800x600 is probably best. You need not design for 640x480 monitors--hardly anyone still uses those. And Web-safe colors or GIFs are a waste of time today--full-color 24-bit JPEGs are fine (and preferable for photos in any case), and they download faster. Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage ... Probably between 640x480 and 780x580 or so. Most monitors are set to 800x600 today; quite a few are set to 1024x768 as well. 700x500 is a nice size that still doesn't allow much in the way of printing on paper (although it can be stolen for other Web use). Using a lot of compression degrades images enough to make them difficult to print, too, although it also influences display quality--high compression speeds downloads, too. I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Yes, those work. If by resolution you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. 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: PS sharpening
Following your discussion which I find quite interesting I would like to ask something in regard of Nikon's GEM usage for archival stuff. Of course, this is primarily for Nikon scanner users who use GEM routinely. First of all, I found applying GEM at the maximum setting (4) to be most efficient smoothing the patterns significantly (which is most useful for portraiture or general images where large portion of the fame is taken by flat patter (as sky or something like that). Of course, there is certain impact on sharpness, so some amount of sharpening is necessary to bring back the original sharpness (not to speak to sharpen the image further). The question is whether you do apply GEM for archival stuff and if yes, do you perform some light sharpening on the image afterwards to recover the original sharpness ? If yes, what did you find the most appropriate settings of PS unsharp mask to be for that ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Stan writes: What if the image is being prepared for a website? The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course quite small compared to the original scan. I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use, as download time is important for Web images, and quality is much less of an issue. Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Saving as JPEG should always be the last step. (However, my images are archived primarily as low-compression JPEGS; this isn't a problem as the vast majority of my final uses involve downsampling the image, anyway.) Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Normally I open an archived image and downsample/unsharp in steps until I reach my final size, then save that. For the Web, I crank up the compression to make the file smaller (usually no more than 6 of 10 in Photoshop 5.x for large images, where quality is presumably more important than download volume, and often 3 for small images, where the inverse is often true). Should sharpening still be the very last step? Always. Sharpening degrades the image, so you don't want to do it until you're done with everything else. And I never sharpen scanned images for archiving; if they need sharpening, I'll do that each time I open them back up for other uses. You never know when a specific use might require the image without sharpening (an image without sharpening is cleaner). 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: PS sharpening
You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,... The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3 like most of the others. Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200). With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands http://burma.wolweb.nl http://annapurna.wolweb.nl 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: PS sharpening
Oh great, why this idea didn't come up in my mind earlier ?? :-) I'll surely try this out today evening. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shunith Dutt Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex.. You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to... Settings - Advanced -General). Cheers... SD - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 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] Scanner profile builder
Has anybody have a chance to try Kodak's COLORFLOW ICC color profiles builder software to calibrate his scanners ? (especially would be interested in IV ED calibration experience). I found quite rave review of this thing from Bruce Fraser using it on LS-4000. According to him it would noticeably improve shadow rendering performance opening up considerably (Nikon's CMS is disabled of course). Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right ? So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are only relevant for monitor's appearance ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? I think you may find that Photoshop is working with 24 bit color, and your graphics card is mapping each 24 bits into a 32 bit word for improved performance. That's how my Matrox G450 is set. So there should be nothing you need do in PS. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.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: PS sharpening
BTW, recently some of our fellows pointed me to the Bruce Fraser's article on creativepro.com taking the approach of two-step sharpening. I assume some of more knowledgeable PS users here are more or less familiar with this technique so will probably be able to clarify something for me. Basically, I liked that way separating the sharpness for archival and outputting purposes allowing to preserve maximum of original sharpness though just enough touch of unsharp mask to bring back the sharpness lost in the process of scanning. What I missed is the last point of this process: using Selection menu to select the Edge Mask created in the duplicated image copy to apply it to the original image. I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge Mask image window). The Save Selection step it missing in his instructions, perhaps because it might seem obvious to slightly more experienced PS user then me. I would appreciate if someone here could clarify this point for me. The link to the article is: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, but as I infer from your explanations this cannot be considered as common practice, so the target is under 800x600. Last time I looked at numbers, just under half of all Web surfers are using 800x600; about 4 out of 5 of the remaining surfers are using 1024x768. Only about one surfer in 50 is still set to 640x480. In fact, 1280x1024 and 1152x864 are both more common than 640x480. However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? No need; 24-bit and 32-bit color are equivalent. 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] Web home page writing software
A little bit off-topic issue: I intend to begin building my web site soon having gained reasonable amount of images to be exhibited. I'm quite novice in web design, have no idea how to do that myself. I would be glad to hear any suggestion you have which simple-to-use software can be utilized for web page design which would also allow building easily manageable image galleries. Also, JPEG image size for web advises are welcome. I'm going to purchase a domain and will have to decide about purchasing web hosting somewhere. I think web hosting offer for 50 MB space would be fair for reasonable amount. Do you think it would be enough for starter ? Thanks in advance, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Monitor calibration offer, kind of OT
Oh well, I understood. I tried this option as well prior to acquiring the Monaco. I used Adobe's Gamma and various freeshare software tools - some of then did provided barely better results, but still way off the optimum. For precise calibration hardware is paramount indeed. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Monitor calibration offer, kind of OT I'm sure that the Monaco package is fine, and I know from experience that the Pantone Colorvision package is a good one. By poor-man's calibration, I meant those packages that don't include a colorimeter. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Alex Zabrovsky Well, I indeed wasn't prepared to shell out 800-1000 US$ for high-end calibrator like one offered me (of Gretag) opting for 300-400 US$ Monaco tool. Of course, I could expect the best results form Gretag (what you pay is what you get), but the profile delivered by Monaco was really goof enough for my point of view considering no real professional goals I'm after. Frankly, I see my scans benefit from clear and true color reproduction without any casts and whatsoever, and this is what I was after. 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] IV ED batch scanning
Hi. I intend to begin to use Batch feature of my LS-40 in hope to save the valuable time scanning film strips. As I understood from that miserable piece of information about Batch scanning in the manual, there is no possibility of preparing history for each frame into the scanned strip with all the editing options available for the image (crop, ICE, GEM, gain if necessary and others). As for my understanding I just chose the frames to be scanned straight from the thumbnails drawer and press Scan button (which means no chances to store all the editing options per each frame). The meaning of that that once editing options are made, they will be implied to all the frames in the strip during Batch scan. Am I wrong ? Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Monitor calibration offer, kind of OT
Oh yeah,I just run through it. :-) Recently I purchased Monaco device with the EZMonacoColor calibration software (ver. 2.0) Just prior to establishing my permanent image processing machine I used my work's antique laptop (Celeron 333, 192 MB memory - very slow performance) hooked to my LS 40 and running NikonScan 3.1.2 through TWAIN from PS6. After acquiring new monitor (Iiyama VM Pro 454) I started to get kind of magenta casting over all the scans which was not easy to get rid of in PS. Sometimes the colors seemed to be off as well. I struggled a lot with Nikon's CMS blaming their software, until realized that perhaps I should look in other directions instead. Listening to advises of some of my friends who are more experienced image editors then me, I decided to try out to calibrate my monitor first and won the device on the Ebay. Meanwhile I managed to build my dream PC to serve as main image processing station choosing the graphics card which would be the best price/performance compromise for me which turned to be Matrox G550 DH. This one is reported to deliver the best 2D performance from all others available, however lugs behind GF4 in 3D which I don't care about (I'm not a gamer). After Matrox drivers installation I immediately noticed huge improvement in color reproduction straight from the plain scan with Nikon's CMS on. (Matrox offered numerous monitor profiles for various monitors including the Iiyama which was he closest match to my model. Perhaps this allowed the true color reproduction). In fact I felt I would be fine even without monitor calibration now, but since owing the device already I did it. Well, it took a mere 10 minutes for everything to be done including automatic installation of the new profile into the system. The colors remained as it was before which means the Matrox offered profile did already the job. However, the friend of mine who is user of Monaco device as well, noticed immediate benefit of his monitor calibration - the profile allowed to achieve much better and true colors and even was able to match printing. So the bottom line, I would recommend this thing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of bob geoghegan Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Monitor calibration offer, kind of OT http://www.dpreview.com/news/0207/02071101dpreviewcolorvisionpromo.asp Just FYI. I have no ties to DPreview or Colorvision. Reviews are generally quite good for the Spyder device and PhotoCAL OptiCAL software. Any thoughts or experiences from the list? Bob G 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] Image archiving and managing software
Hi all. After I finally established by image processing and archiving PC system, it's time to get some nice and useful image archiving and managing software to keep track of my image database and easily manageable archive. I would be grateful to anyone advising on this point. My system consist of: PC running Win2000 Pro. Scanners: Nikon LS40. Image scanning software - NikonScan ver 3.1.2 used as TWAIN through PS7. Image editing software - PS7. The strategy I was considering as follows: 1. All archiving-worth images are stored in JPEG format (after PS tweaking is necessary and resizing). The file size - up to 200k per image. 2. High-quality images from above, potentially intended for future printing and enlargement - scanned at 12 bit/pixel resolution (up to ~60 MB file) tweaked in PS (if necessary) while keeping track of PS editing done to this particular image (for reversibility if if possible). Images are stored as either TIFF 16 bit or PSD files. The achieve will be stored on local HDDs, back up on remote (USB2.0 accessible) HDD and CDs. Your comments are welcome. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic rangeAUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR
No Austin, perhaps I made me unclear: the thread topic and how it has started has really captured my attention raising quite interesting issue certainly related to the scanning, but then many unnecessary discussions have entered this line going deeply into things which has not much to do with the List issue taking more and more of the bandwidth on the List. (I must confess, from certain point I just started to delete automatically the bunches of the emails on this List dealing with this thread). I'm electronics engineer myself so perhaps those electronic processing debates run through this thread might have certain interest for me, but surely not in the scope of this List. This is just how I feel about that, probably others will not agree with me. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 9:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic rangeAUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR Now it is down to people's self-consciousness to realize that this List isn't the very appropriate place for such long and annoying threads going off-topic more and more. Hi Alex, It comes across that you (and some others) somehow believe the Density vs Dynamic Rage thread was off-topic. In fact, it could not be more ON topic. It may not be a topic that (unfortunately ) interests a lot of list members, but it IS an important topic (far more important than a lot of people may understand) that does relate to filmscanners. There are many topics on this, and other lists, that don't please everyone...for one example, I could care less about Viewscan and Nikon scanners (although some of the discussion about Nikon scanners does interest me), but they ARE related to film scanners, and do belong here...except when this group becomes a Viewscan support group...now that's out of line IMO. I believe this group is everything from how do I turn my scanner on to what is the spectral response of the LEDs in the Nikon 8000ED scanner...it's all about filmscanners. Regards, Austin 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: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic rangeAUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR
Thanks Tony. Everybody on the List knows how hard you work so no complaints on that, and I would apologize if I offended you in any manner in my original posting. Now it is down to people's self-consciousness to realize that this List isn't the very appropriate place for such long and annoying threads going off-topic more and more. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic rangeAUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 05:12:58 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Austin and Isidoro, thanks for your support of my point of view, but I see this thread isn't going to be shut down. I wonder where is our Moderator disappeared. A while ago I accidently raised up some issue doesn't related to the List topic just by one email and was almost trashed by the Moderator, but in this case, spoiling the List's bandwidth heavily almost nobody cares. The moderator is up to his neck in real-life problems right now. When under pressure, which has been considerable lately, list admin has to take priority over participating here usefully. I got 3hrs sleep last night, so please excuse the rather ratty following response:- Look, mailing lists are very simple: - world-class pedantry, circular quibbling over terminology, and simply being crushingly boring are not against the rules of this forum because someone (me, probably) would have to make an editorial decision about every single message. Which would generate howls of 'censorship!' and 'hey, I was interested in that', and I'd be rightly criticised. I don't have the time either. - where a thread descends into abuse or hatred, I will put a stop to it immediately. But I can't invigilate against what I might consider egotism or self-indulgence, especially when on-topic. People are grown-up enough to formulate their own opinions, and make their own decisions about what to do. - even the most tedious thread has a finite lifespan. It will go away if and when people start ignoring it. Starting several new OT threads is less effective than (as a few sensible people have) mailing me personally off-list. This gives me a chance to measure disaffection. And please guard against the 'must have the last word' syndrome - it doesn't matter who does. - the solution to lack of content you find interesting is to ask the questions you want answered, raise the points you want discussed - as the driver of your own email software, you can far better than I can whether or not to read or delete or ignore anything that doesn't interest you - I am not preventing anyone from leaving this list. As far as I knew (until as posted here yesterday) the listserver was correctly processing unsubscribe mails. I now have more work to do trying to trace whatever malfunction caused the server to deny the list existed. Since 14/6 to 19/6 it processed 2 subscribes and 6 unsubscribes correctly, so it may have been some transient error. But if anyone wants to leave and finds they cannot, please mail me personally - [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I will remove you manually. - Finally, can I ask the posters to the Density vs Dynamic range thread to please wind it up within 48hrs, unless there is something fresh to be said. And please can we end this discussion here too. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons 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: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Thanks Julian. I'll take a look to your stuff and will get back. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field At 02:00 26/04/02, Alex Z wrote: I wonder whether the IV ED also suffers from this problem since I suspect it has almost the same hardware (except of the sensor). In fact, I remember noticing uneven sharpness descending near slide mount edges, but wasn't sure this is scanner's fault or the slide has been exposed that way (didn't have time to check the original under the loupe or play with manual focus point adjustment then) Yes AFAIK all Nikon scanners are the same - must be Nikon's design choice to use relatively large aperture lens, perhaps to make up for lower light output from LEDs? I don't know why they don't make the lens variable aperture, since they seem to have at least 2 stops of extra light (or exposure anyway, maybe it is partly extra exposure time) available using analogue gain control. Why not stop the lens down 2 stops and use max analog gain for normal exposure operations? Then you'd get a significant increase in Depth of Field and greatly reduce the unsharpness problems at edges and corners. If you want to check your scanner, I describe an easy way on http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/photography/ls2000-focus.htm I'd be interested to hear your results on a couple of typical negs/slides, and also interested if you have trouble with the complexity of my instructions. I've had one person tell me they couldn't understand it, but a number seem to have found it useful so I am wondering if I need to re-word it. Julian 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: Scanner calibration
Thanks Lauri, but would it be hardware reason the output would be wrong completely with either Nikon CMS On or Off. In my case, switching the Nikon CMS off results in near-to-be color balanced scans featured by slight green tint (barely visible sometimes), which is nice considering the output wasn't color processed in software yet. Also, playing with profiling last weekend I incidentally tried LS2000/LS30 profile which is installed automatically into the OS upon Nikon Software installation besides of profiles for LS4000/LS40 and LS8000. I didn't pay attention on these until last Friday, and then being tired from all this profiling struggle I tried the LS2000/LS30 profile and that amazed me. This one worked much better then either LS4000/LS40, LS8000 or Nikon CMS being ON ! The problem is as follows as for my understanding: the unprocessed data out of the scanner delivers slightly greenish scans. The Nikon CMS tries to compensate for it adding substantial amount of pinkish tint which is way too much ending with heavy pink tinted image. So do the LS4000/LS40 and LS8000 profiles supplied with the Nikon driver. On the other hand, the LS2000/LS30 profile adds very delicate pink/orage tint in the amount which is just enough to compensate that green cast the hardware output is featured by. That seems to work quite well for me, so I worked out my procedure: scanning into Photoshop with Nikon CMS off on the permanent manner, and then performing Assign profile for LS2000/LS30. After that the results obtained seems to be as 99 % neutral as would be expected initially and are starting point for ordinary further manual processing of necessary. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration Just speculation; but the pinkish cast could be possibly dou to a change in the power current used to run the scanner; do you suffer any recent and unusual fluxes in your electric power such as brownouts? It also may be cuased by a bad or deteriorating light source (e.g., a bad or deteriorating LED or fluorescent tube in the scanner which is giving off a slightly different color or color temperature). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration Yes, I also used to work with Adobe 98 in both Nikon 3.1.2 and Photoshop delivering good, well balanced results, until recently the scanner began to deliver pinkish scans with which I'm struggling till now... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scanner calibration Alex writes: If so, it seems I'll have to turn the Nikon CMS off permanently. I've always had it turned off in Nikon Scan 2.x, as it just messes up too many things. It seems to work okay in Nikon Scan 3.1.2; I have the color space set to Adobe 1998 (the same space I use in Photoshop). 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] RE: Scanner calibration
Yes, I also used to work with Adobe 98 in both Nikon 3.1.2 and Photoshop delivering good, well balanced results, until recently the scanner began to deliver pinkish scans with which I'm struggling till now... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scanner calibration Alex writes: If so, it seems I'll have to turn the Nikon CMS off permanently. I've always had it turned off in Nikon Scan 2.x, as it just messes up too many things. It seems to work okay in Nikon Scan 3.1.2; I have the color space set to Adobe 1998 (the same space I use in Photoshop). 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: Scanner profile
In Photoshop I use Photoshop's own CM engine. I was told I will have to Assign Profile with the scanner's calibrated profile to the image brought into the Photoshop to do the thing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner profile The same for Photoshop. I'll work in it acquiring the scans by calling NikonScan as TWAIN. The Photoshop is normally configured for Adobe RGB working space, how to tell him to treat the image using custom scanner's profile ? (Or I only have to tell NikonScan that, and the Photoshop will pick the processed image already ?) First, it depends on which color management engine you are using - the os's engine or Photoshop's engine. Second if you use the Photoshop engine, you can select the scanner's custom profile as the Photoshop workingspace which will cause Photoshop to operate on the same working space as the scanner's profile defines. This should result in the scanner output and the photoshop version being the same unless you fiddle with some other contols related to the scanner output in the scanner's driver or application. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Scanner profile Once I'll have scanner profile generated, how can I tell the NikonScan to use it instead of his own CMS ? Regards, Alex Z -- -- 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] RE: New Purchase
I don't have these (I own Nikon IV ED) but from those you mentioned the Polaroid beats the rest hands down according to all reviews and opinions I heard, and also, considerable part of our community and very satisfied SS4000 users and once you will become happy owner of one you will be able to get very valuable assistance on the List. I would certainly go for one would it be available in my country. (Although Nikon IV ED isn't bad either :-) ). Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Renenger Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] New Purchase Hello all, I am new to the filmscanners list, but am excited to be a part of this group. I am currently in the process of purchasing a film scanner and intend to buy a used scanner. I am debating between a Kodak RFS 3600, Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus (Model cs3600) and an HP Photosmart S20. Based upon my budget constraints, the Polaroid or the HP seem to be the logical choice. I would appreciate any recommendations for one over the other. That being said, I may be able to acquire the Kodak for a relatively reasonable price. If so, would you recommend that I purchase that instead? Based upon your experiences (or conversations from others) have you found the Kodak to be a significant step up from the Polaroid or the HP? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Ed Renenger 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: New Purchase
Oh, sorry. I obviously meant SS4000 or his young brother SS4000+. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New Purchase Alex, One correction... he is referring to the Polaroid Sprintscan 35 plus, which is an older scanner prior to the SS4000. It is not longer supported by Polaroid in any major way. Art Alex Zabrovsky wrote: I don't have these (I own Nikon IV ED) but from those you mentioned the Polaroid beats the rest hands down according to all reviews and opinions I heard, and also, considerable part of our community and very satisfied SS4000 users and once you will become happy owner of one you will be able to get very valuable assistance on the List. I would certainly go for one would it be available in my country. (Although Nikon IV ED isn't bad either :-) ). Regards, Alex Z 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: Scanner calibration
The NikonScan is configured fro Adobe 98 RGB (Preferences/Color Management tab) as well the Photoshop. Well, yesterday evening, for my great disappointment, I revealed that the strong bluish or to be more precise violet cast I reported previously has gone just because once struggling with it I had to tweak analog gain on RGB channels trying to compensate for it, then closing the application the Nikon software remembered that analog gain setting and automatically loaded it once the NikonScan has being re-launched, whilst I though it was cleared off. That was the reason of the cast disappearing, and not my pervious guesses about removing monitor profile. Once I cleared the analog gain settings to 0, the violet cast came back :-(( driving me crazy again. Playing with that more, I figured out that switching Nikon CMS off diminishes the cast greatly making it hardly distinguishable, which means Nikon Color Management caused it with no relation to monitor profiling at all ! Going further, I switched the Nikon CMS On again and set RGB to be Scanner RGB instead of my regular Adobe 98 RGB setting in NikonScan, in order to make the Nikon software not to use the scanner's ICC profiles embedded into the software - that cured the problem again removing the cast, but making certain impact on brightness (the image is a bit darker then). So I inferred that the reason for this violet cast is Nikon's ICC profile embedded into their software. (According to the manual, implying Scanner RGB space in Color Management/RGB tab will dismiss usage of Nikon's ICC profile in the driver, without need to switch off the whole CMS) What really confused me is that fact that a few weeks ago, scanning several rolls of slides and negs with ordinary NikonScan configuration (Nikon CMS is ON) I haven't noticed any unusual color casting over the image. The only changed since then is the monitor... Amy it still be the reason somehow ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 7:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration The scans delivered to Photoshop seemed overexposed Completely speculative, what is the Photoshop working color space set for? Could it be that this working space is is the problem in that Photoshop is translating the scan input into its working space which is being displayed on the monitor while the scanner output that is not going through Photoshop is being displayed directly in either sRGB or your monitor's default windows or default custom profile? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration Well, must admit I cannot complain on the image quality delivered by my IV ED using his default driver NikonScan 3.1.2. Nikon's CMS seems to work good indeed. However, I thought having the scanner calibrated precisely using the Q-60 TI8 slide and appropriate software might create even more precise results, which I would like to compare with driver's native colors interpretation. Frankly, this isn't something pressing me hardly, since the scanner already deliver good results without his profile customization. However I have another issue bothering me a lot. A few days ago I changed my display purchasing new Iiyama VisionMaster 454. It comes with his own setup software (INF file and ICC profile) which I downloaded from their site and installed. into my system (Win98SE). Besides of that, I tweaked the monitor's profile using Adobe Gamma utility and installed it as working monitor's profile. That was the starting point of my troubles. Once I did all that, the scanner started to deliver heavy bluish cast on slides which is easily distinguishable on both preview and scan in Photoshop and to correct it back I had either to play with analog gain feature on RGB or to try to remove that in Photoshop using Curves in RGB channels. That was really frustrating, considering the fact that with the previous monitor I didn't have such problems from the beginning. The friend of mine has recommended to remove this manually created monitor's profile from the system (it is actually started automatically altering the video card's LUT replacing the default Window's values with those generated during my own calibration). Since it is loaded automatically upon Windows startup, to remove it I had to remove the link to this file in System StartUp menu. After I did it, the cast has disappeared indeed for my happiness and the scanned results started to look much more neutral resembling the situation with old monitor. This was relaxing. However, I noticed new effect I didn't pay attention of earlier with new monitor. The scans delivered to Photoshop seemed overexposed (excessive brightness). Trying to lower the brightness (by Analog Gain, Master channel
[filmscanners] RE: Monitor calibration
This is CRT monitor, but I have no idea how they created the profile. For example, the usual color temperature used in PC monitors is 9300K while I certainly prefer 6500K which is much more appropriate for image editing. Bearing that in mind, I have no idea what color temperature they calibrated for. Just an example. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Monitor calibration Why not just use the profile provided with the monitor? Presumably it already corresponds to the display characteristics. Is the VisionMaster a CRT or flat panel? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 07:30 Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Monitor calibration A few days ago I changed my display purchasing new Iiyama VisionMaster 454. It comes with his own setup software (INF file and ICC profile) which I downloaded from their site and installed. into my system (Win98SE). Besides of that, I tweaked the monitor's profile using Adobe Gamma utility and installed it as working monitor's profile. I also have an Iiyama Vision Master Pro. Plus I use a Matrox card. I dimly remember that there were some problems when I used one of the canned monitor profiles. One of the internet sites had a big no-no for using any of the profiles that came with either the grafics card or the monitor if you intent to use Adobe Gamma. So I started out with a generic NT profile (or none at all, for all I know), and then 'calibrated' by using Adobe Gamma. That profile is used as my monitor profile, and I have had no trouble since. Best regards, Barbara Nitz -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net 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] RE: Monitor calibration
Thanks Barbara. Well, I cannot boast by the decent video card, since my only system so far is quite old Compaq laptop powered by antique Celeron 330MHz with 192 MB RAM and as you already realized the built-in video card is really weak. To make the display stable I can barely run it at 800x600 @ 75 Hz vertical refresh or sometimes even go down to 60 Hz. Of course, I'm planning in near future to upgrade to decent desktop, but anyway, I don't think the current system configuration might impact the image quality in such way. As about calibration, yesterday I tried different approach from one I followed previously, but which closely resembles to yours: I took generic sRGB Windows profile and calibrated the IIyama with Adobe Gamma utility setting it to 6500K and tweaking colors and Gamma as needed. Overall, the display solely appearance looking good, but this surely doesn't resolve the casting problem which seems to be related to Nikon Color management in NikonScan as I described in my reply to Laurie. Still cannot figure out what went wrong. Not a while ago everything worked fine, NikonScan delivered more or less true, satisfactory colors using it at default color management settings. The only thing was altered is new display, but then it is also seems to be easily calibrated visually... BTW, do you remember what kind of phosphor dots have you chosen during your Adobe Gamma calibration for your Iiyama ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Monitor calibration A few days ago I changed my display purchasing new Iiyama VisionMaster 454. It comes with his own setup software (INF file and ICC profile) which I downloaded from their site and installed. into my system (Win98SE). Besides of that, I tweaked the monitor's profile using Adobe Gamma utility and installed it as working monitor's profile. I also have an Iiyama Vision Master Pro. Plus I use a Matrox card. I dimly remember that there were some problems when I used one of the canned monitor profiles. One of the internet sites had a big no-no for using any of the profiles that came with either the grafics card or the monitor if you intent to use Adobe Gamma. So I started out with a generic NT profile (or none at all, for all I know), and then 'calibrated' by using Adobe Gamma. That profile is used as my monitor profile, and I have had no trouble since. Best regards, Barbara Nitz -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net 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: Profiles
Thanks, got it, good point. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of michael shaffer Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Profiles Alex writes ... If I get your point correctly, you claim that monitors cannot display wider gamut then ordinary sRGB regardless of particular display qualities, which mean, there is no point to scan and save in Adobe 98 RGB which is wider and thus resulting in larger files. ... I remember Adobe's Chris Cox commenting on sRGB being represenative of cheap monitors. More appropriately, I believe the people who created sRGB space thought it was representative of most monitors. Although print spaces shouldn't be considered to have a larger gamut, some of their color capabilities (cyan-green-yellow) are considered outside typical monitor spaces. Therefore, most consider sRGB to have too small a gamut for anything other than wwweb presentation. What about scanning for archive ? ... Why convert your archived scan to anything? Leave it the way it is, and convert it when you're ready to use it again. Once you convert to a smaller gamut, you can never get it back (short of hitting 'ctrl-z') cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) 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: Profiles
So embedding the color space into the image file ? I do that all the time, but understood that the only viewing/editing software featuring Color Management and able to use the embedded color spaces is Photoshop and perhaps a very few others, while the most common things (like ACDs and Windows viewer) cannot benefit from this feature which is the reason of image appearance varying among every other system. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Profiles Michael writes: I remember Adobe's Chris Cox commenting on sRGB being represenative of cheap monitors. As I recall, sRGB was largely based on NTSC gamut, which is indeed pretty cheap compared to what good monitors are capable of displaying. sRGB was sort of a lowest common denominator. Why convert your archived scan to anything? You don't have to convert it, but you should prepare it in an identified color space and store that information in the archived image, so that anyone retrieving it later can get the colors as you left them. 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: Scanner calibration
Well, must admit I cannot complain on the image quality delivered by my IV ED using his default driver NikonScan 3.1.2. Nikon's CMS seems to work good indeed. However, I thought having the scanner calibrated precisely using the Q-60 TI8 slide and appropriate software might create even more precise results, which I would like to compare with driver's native colors interpretation. Frankly, this isn't something pressing me hardly, since the scanner already deliver good results without his profile customization. However I have another issue bothering me a lot. A few days ago I changed my display purchasing new Iiyama VisionMaster 454. It comes with his own setup software (INF file and ICC profile) which I downloaded from their site and installed. into my system (Win98SE). Besides of that, I tweaked the monitor's profile using Adobe Gamma utility and installed it as working monitor's profile. That was the starting point of my troubles. Once I did all that, the scanner started to deliver heavy bluish cast on slides which is easily distinguishable on both preview and scan in Photoshop and to correct it back I had either to play with analog gain feature on RGB or to try to remove that in Photoshop using Curves in RGB channels. That was really frustrating, considering the fact that with the previous monitor I didn't have such problems from the beginning. The friend of mine has recommended to remove this manually created monitor's profile from the system (it is actually started automatically altering the video card's LUT replacing the default Window's values with those generated during my own calibration). Since it is loaded automatically upon Windows startup, to remove it I had to remove the link to this file in System StartUp menu. After I did it, the cast has disappeared indeed for my happiness and the scanned results started to look much more neutral resembling the situation with old monitor. This was relaxing. However, I noticed new effect I didn't pay attention of earlier with new monitor. The scans delivered to Photoshop seemed overexposed (excessive brightness). Trying to lower the brightness (by Analog Gain, Master channel or by Curves tool in Photoshop) helps, but then, opening the pictures in something like ACDS viewer shows much darker image then it appears in Photoshop. That confused me. I was told the ACDs and most other available viewer doesn't support Color Management which means the results aren't corrected by the monitor's profile the Photoshop uses. This is frustrating. The only way left to go is to remove the Iiyama monitor's profile from Display Properties so that the default Window's display profile (if any) would only one for all applications, until I'll acquire monitor calibration hardware/software tool to create precise monitor's profile. Any thoughts ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of michael shaffer Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration Alex writes ... Recently I was given the IT8 35mm slide to try out my IV ED calibration, but I have no calibration software to handle IT8 pattern. ... Use littleCMS with care http://www.littlecms.com/ ... the results seem to be respectable, but I doubt if it will produce anything better than the CLUT profiles which cane with your scanner. What scanning software are you going to use it with? What settings? cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) 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: Scanner calibration
Thanks Michael. My usual setup is scanning into Photoshop through calling for NikonScan (3.1.2) via Import feature, doing presets on preview in NikonScan and scan editing in Photoshop. The NikonScan is configured to use Adobe 98 RGB color space and all the editing is done in this space. I just would like to try out the calibration just to make sure this IT8 based calibration isn't going to improve drastically the image scanned appearance which is not bad at all anyway with NikonScan own management. Now, what bothers me a lot is the quite visible difference in brightness in image appearance in Photoshop and opened in ACDs or other common viewer. In Photoshop the image is much brighter, while in regular viewer it seems to be underexposed. I'm struggling a lot to figure out what should be done to correct that. Removing all monitor's profiles from the system doesn't seem to help so far... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of michael shaffer Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration Alex writes ... Recently I was given the IT8 35mm slide to try out my IV ED calibration, but I have no calibration software to handle IT8 pattern. ... Use littleCMS with care http://www.littlecms.com/ ... the results seem to be respectable, but I doubt if it will produce anything better than the CLUT profiles which cane with your scanner. What scanning software are you going to use it with? What settings? cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) 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] Scanner calibration
Hi friends. Recently I was given the IT8 35mm slide to try out my IV ED calibration, but I have no calibration software to handle IT8 pattern. I was able to download some free calibration software, but it turned to be one based on their own calibration transparency which must be purchased separately. Can anybody recommend the software for download working with regular IT8 slide ? I wouldn't mind to pay a reasonable amount for a quality one which would be able to generate precise profile based on ordinary Kodak's Q-60 IT8 35mm slide. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Scanning negs vs. slides
Hi guys. I just had a conversation with some experienced user of IV ED. During the talk, he mentioned that once he acquired the scanner and started to built his archive, he turned to negatives solely claiming that he found the results to be better scanning negatives in case of wide dynamic range captured on the film. He states that the image with featuring high contrast (night scenic for example) will be rendered much better by the scanner in terms of the details in dark, while highlights are still well preserved, whilst with slides often the dark details are missing being still resolved visually on light table under loupe. Is that correct ? I usually prefer to shoot slides for anything except people-related stuff, but if is opinions have much to reflect the reality, I would probably switch to negatives for outdoors also. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanning negs vs. slides
Thanks, I wasn't aware about the persistence of this issue on the List. Well, just after I hit Send button sending away my message, I thought it would be worthwhile to check it out shooting similar images simultaneously on slides and negs, scan then on my IV ED and then to make final decision. I think I'll do it soon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alessandro Pardi Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanning negs vs. slides Alex, expect a war after your post :-) This is a long debated topic: last thread I followed ended with (more or less) the agreement that high-end scanners (drum scanners) work better with slides, whereas prosumer scanners give better results with negatives (of course, slides have the advantage of providing a visual reference for color calibration, but that's another matter). In my experience I can confirm that both the Nikon LS-30 and the Canon FS4000, especially for contrasty images, give MUCH better results with negs. I have never even seen a drum scanner, so I'll let someone else confirm or reject the other part of the statement. Anyway, if you already own a scanner and don't plan to change it, you may want to test your equipment, since that's what you're going to deal with. Alessandro Pardi One day I'll have a website. Until then, you can see some of my work here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=189247 -Original Message- From: Alex Zabrovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: lunedì 15 aprile 2002 13.19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Scanning negs vs. slides Hi guys. I just had a conversation with some experienced user of IV ED. During the talk, he mentioned that once he acquired the scanner and started to built his archive, he turned to negatives solely claiming that he found the results to be better scanning negatives in case of wide dynamic range captured on the film. He states that the image with featuring high contrast (night scenic for example) will be rendered much better by the scanner in terms of the details in dark, while highlights are still well preserved, whilst with slides often the dark details are missing being still resolved visually on light table under loupe. Is that correct ? I usually prefer to shoot slides for anything except people-related stuff, but if is opinions have much to reflect the reality, I would probably switch to negatives for outdoors also. Regards, Alex Z -- -- 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] RE: Fuji Superia in Vuescan
Thanks Tony, I will certainly do that gladly. What I intended to say that NikonScan copes very good with Superia delivering more then acceptable results while a short further tweaking makes final touch to produce very good looking image. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 8:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Fuji Superia in Vuescan On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:58:01 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As I mentioned previously, I tried the Reala settings and regular White Balance unsuccessfully. Perhaps this is something to do with the issue of trial version against full one ? No, I'm sure it is identical Or, the SS4000 support for Superia emulsion is eventually better then for IV ED in Vuescan for some reason ? Unlikely. Possibly it is that the IV ED which doesn't cope as well, but I wouldn't expect that to be a major factor. The most likely explanation is that you are expecting a well-balanced and colour-corrected scan to be produced by Vuescan, without further work. This is a lot to ask of any colour negative + scanner, it just isn't the simple translation of dye densities -RGB values that tranny is because the neg is far more mutable, it's the raw material for an image, and scanning or printing is interpretive. To pick just one parameter, density range. Colour neg can record a subject brightness range well in excess of 10 stops, sometimes 12+ stops. Colour neg is designed to massively compress those 10+ stops into a low-ODR dye image as a halfway house to the even more compressed reflectance range of paper prints. With a half-decent scanner you can scan this so all of those 10 stops range are present within the scan, but on screen it will look flat, dull and unsaturated (there will be colour casts as well, most likely, too). With tranny, the film itself can cope with usually rather less than 5 stops range because it's designed to reproduce an ODR which the eye finds acceptable in a projected image. Scan that and it will look acceptable, because the brightness range of the tranny is already close to what looks right on a monitor. With colour neg you will need to adjust levels to get near to an acceptable-looking image. If this is done automatically by software, the software is making decisions about discarding shadow or highlight detail or both. Vuescan's best use IME is to get it all so you can make those decisions manually in PS. This it does very well with Superia 400, especially if you scan to 16bit/ch. Colour correction is done only to the extent only that further manual adjustment is easy because the mask and non-linearities of the scanner/film combination have been adjusted out. What it doesn't do especially well is produce a fine-looking, tonally balanced, colour accurate scan from colour neg. which needs no further work. If it did, I wouldn't use it, 'cos I want to do it to suit the image and how I want it to look rather than have it fixed up according to some hardwired algorithm. If you like, email me one of your unhappy scans (please resample down to 7.5x5@300ppi and Jpeg quality 6 to keep filesize ~.5-1Mb, 8bit/ch is fine for this) and I'll have a poke around. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons 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: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
Oh, that hurts. I run it on ordinary Win98SE, and the friend of mine works with it in Win2000. However, if your system running WinNT and the software wasn't designed to work under this OS, that is disappointing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Alex writes: I was wondering why people continue to complain heavily about Nikon Scan after ver. 3.1.2 became available. Version 3.x doesn't run on some versions of Windows (e.g., NT). 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: Fuji Superia in Vuescan
Thanks Colin. In fact, I gave a try to Reala profile as well many others and nothing helped. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Colin Maddock Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Fuji Superia in Vuescan Alex asked: Is something wrong in my Vuescan processing of Superia or this is unfortunately the reality of Vuescan not being able to handle Sueria emulsion ? This has come up from time to time before. The general conclusion was to use the Fuji Reala 100 (Japan) setting with Superia. That's what I do with my Canon FS2710, and the results are fine, in my opinion. Usually use Superia 200 here, but I suppose the 400 emulsion has the same characteristics? Colin Maddock 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: Fuji Superia in Vuescan
Thanks Tony. As I mentioned previously, I tried the Reala settings and regular White Balance unsuccessfully. Perhaps this is something to do with the issue of trial version against full one ? Or, the SS4000 support for Superia emulsion is eventually better then for IV ED in Vuescan for some reason ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 2:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Fuji Superia in Vuescan On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:39:25 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I downloaded the trial version of Vuescan to give it a try and was disappointed by the terrible results scanning negatives (Fuji Superia 400). I know the Vuescan is distinguished by negative film profiles for many common emulsion existing on the market, but unfortunately no Superia's 400 profile is available. I use 'Reala 100(Japan)' and get excellent results from VS+Superia400, with Polaroid SS4000. 'White balance' generally works best. Expect to do some work on levels and colour balance. Hue and saturation also need minor tweaking sometimes. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons 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: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
John, I'm second to your opinion. I was wondering why people continue to complain heavily about Nikon Scan after ver. 3.1.2 became available. I'm not a programmer, and wouldn't mind how exactly it was written and why they chosen particular style of programming, but rather enjoyed the software working stable, delivering predictable results in most cases (more then 90 % of cases) and UI is intuitive enough to allow ordinary no BSc in Computer Science holding users to process their work quickly. (I don't think my electronics engineering education and experience have something to do helping me out to understand usage of UI of Nikon Scan). Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Bradbury Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 6:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! I use Nikon scan all the time and I use Windows. The earlier NS did have an awful interface, but the current one is very user friendly. And the end product is excellent scans from pos and neg, in fact far superior to Vuescan which I have stopped using due to its erratic colour correction (I mean green skin tones for one) On top of that NS just keeps on going even on a full day scanning section John Bradbury ! Anthony Atkielski writes: The conflict between the Nikon Scan interface and that of Windows generally is obvious even to the novice, and indeed, someone who has used only Windows interfaces is probably the most likely to be disoriented by Nikon's departure from the norm. It's time-consuming figure out how to make rollers and drawers work in this program, when these inteface widgets are not used by any other Windows software. 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: Piezo Exhibition in Boston
Hey Jack, are you really working for ASF ? This is great because there is an option of getting first-hand information about widely known ICE package functionally implemented into popular scanners. I'm considering purchasing of Nikon IV ED which features such functionality... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Piezo Exhibition in Boston Congratulations Bruce! I wish I could make it to Boston! It is great to hear about the success of others! Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I've mostly lurked here since last fall because I've been pursuing a sabbatical project in digital printing. I've learned a lot by doing so, and some of that knowledge has now been put to use. I am truly indebted to all on the list. I've just put the finishing touches on an exhibition of 31 Piezo BW prints now on display through March 1 at the Gallery at Newbury College in Brookline, near Boston MA, USA. I work primarily with the natural landscape as raw subject matter, using 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 formats. I depart from tradition by making two negatives of each scene, reversing one, aligning the pair and printing them as a sandwich. The results can be startlingly different from the original. Imagine Minor White making Rorshach inkblots (clue: he did:-) Printing the work conventionally always entailed complex masking and contrast control. Scanning to Photoshop affords me much greater control, flexibility, and consistency. The negatives were scanned on a Scitex Eversmart (5x7s) and a humble Epson 2450 (less of a step down than one might expect) and printed with an 1160/CIS Austin Franklin sold me on 13 x 19 Photo Rag. There are also two 22 x 30 prints made on a 7000 at the Cone workshop. I have a .pdf of the announcement card, but I'm not sure if I can post it to the list as an attachment. Email me directly if you would like a copy, or any other information. 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] SS4000
Hi. Does anybody know where can I still find SS4000 available in US for online ordering ? (Ecost doesn't seem to hold them any more, neither BH...) Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing
Thanks David, I realized that. Will check them carefully. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 6:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing Alex, The main reason I passed the URL along was for its tips on building a PC and it's recent comments on the different types of memory. Regards David -Original Message- From: Alex Zabrovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 6:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing Oh yeah, indeed. :-) In fact, I found PC accessories and parts local pricing (in Israel) differs from US very slightly making no point to purchase is abroad and taking care of all these hassles related with SH. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing Hemingway, David J wrote: Jim, There is a local but good size dealer in Cambridge, Ma that has good deals on both components and systems. As they cater to system builders they also have some info on building systems and the differences between the memory types. I know they are saying the delta in price is narrowing. www.pcsforeveryone.com David I suspect the postage costs from Cambridge Mass, USA to Israel (where Alex, the original poster lives) might eat into the savings a bit ;-) Art 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] RE: Building PC system for image editing
Thanks Ezio. I understand going with Athlon I'll will have to chose certain motherboard (not all Pentium board will work with it, right ?) Also, it seem to use DDR memory type not being compatible with regular SDRAMs, right ? (so the motherboard supporting the Athlon are intended for DDR memory interfacing, am I wrong ?) BTW, what about cooling ? I've heard AMD should be treated in special way in regard of it since being heated significantly. Many suggest adding additional fan streaming onto the CPU. Is that correct ? Athlon + additional fan solution approaches to comparable performance P4 ... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing Alex ... first of all you will find as many opinion about the best as many users you will contact ;o) ... he he he ! Second ... I have developped my OPTIMAL SYSTEM in the past 12 years of self assembling ... all my friends have systems builded by myself ... and in house I have 3 systems interconnected (mainly used by kids to play video games and myself to play with digital imaging and digital audio). 1. Memory. I understand this is the most important resource for image processing. I'm planning to start from 512 MB Well done ! ... that is barely enough ... for scanning purposes . In facts 2700dpi from a film are almost 30MB ... multiplied many times (as Photoshop does ... ) + other system stuff = 256 MB + some room for the ease . 2. Processor. I think I would opt for something like P4 1.6-1.7 GHz which sounds to be enough given there will be no serious constraints on the memory amount. What about AMD Ahtlon ? I strongly push for AMD processors ... I have those ONLY at home (3 systems) and no problems nor with Photoshop and neither with Wavelab by Steinberg neither with the most demanding and intriguing video games very cheap , very fast , very powerful and very stable ON APPRPRIATE MOTHERBOARD !!! be careful only few vendors of MB are ... STABLE ... I suggest ASUS A7V266 coupled with AMD 1.7GHz (PIII clone and more) 3. As about HDD I think there is no too much choices to contemplate about. The bigger, faster and reliable is better. Depends on the local market offerings. BTW, should I pay more for SCSI interface ? What is RAID ? Any opinions about it ? SCSI U-160 for SURE ... and lately there are on eBay good auctions for SCSI RAID boards available for 50$ (I've bought a couple of them!!! ... MYLEX ACCELERAID 250 ) SCSI because it's FASTER and working with many I/O at the same time IT IS NOT MORE EXPENSIVE as you think ... I have already bought (for my new system ) 4 x IBM SCSI-3 18GB 1rpm 4MB cache at 90$ EACH !!! under IBM warranty (3 years) sealed packs on eBay of course ! IDE is good for CD-R ... quite good ... because you will have troubles to find CD-Rs SCSI these days ... and in this case the SCSI devices are owfully more expensive than IDE ... so TAKE IDE for SLOW devices to SAVE on the total system budget. 4. Display card. Which one would you recommend ? (not necessarily to be the most expensive though...) Take a GTS2 nVidia today available at less than 150$ (64MB DDR) ... I use an ELSA 64MB DDR GTS2 since 2 years ago and today are available GTS3 but they cost 500$ list and 300$ on eBay ... abd such a power is required by gaming only not by Photoshop ! 5. CD-RW. Are there DVD-RW available for PC installation ? Are they worth the expense ? I use 2 x MITSUMI 8x4x24 2 years old ... I have burnt more than 1,000 CD-Rs flawless (I have told you I am playing with music ! ... ) they costed 2 years ago 120$ each and are good as the much more expensive Plextor , TDK or other ! ... CD-Rs are required for archiving purposes and almost compulsory . I suggest MITSUMI (the new models ) on eBay (they have a lousy distribution and thus are easier and cheaper to find on eBay ) many other available , but DO NOT BUDGET more than 150$ each ... they are just like those expensive. Put them IDE not to slow down your SCSI chain and not to spend a fortune ! SCSI board CHEAP ! to attach the scanners ... must be added. 2904 or similar by ADAPTEC (I have a 2940 I have paid 150$ 3 years ago ... but there are available 2940UW2 on eBay for less than 200$. This is almost the system I would build for a friend I cannot say it is the fastest , but I am almost sure it is among the best as price/performance ratio. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [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: Building PC system for image editing
Oh sorry, you're right indeed. I apologize for clattering the bandwidth... and thanks for the links. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 5:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing Alex, the nature of your questions shows that you have significant gaps in your understanding of the products available. This list is *not* the place for you to fill in your knowledge. I suggest you spend time reading sites like www.anandtech.com www.tomshardware.com And then use www.deja.com to find newsgroups that are dedicated to the questions you have. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: 13 January 2002 11:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing Thanks Ezio. I understand going with Athlon I'll will have to chose certain motherboard (not all Pentium board will work with it, right ?) Also, it seem to use DDR memory type not being compatible with regular SDRAMs, right ? (so the motherboard supporting the Athlon are intended for DDR memory interfacing, am I wrong ?) BTW, what about cooling ? I've heard AMD should be treated in special way in regard of it since being heated significantly. Many suggest adding additional fan streaming onto the CPU. Is that correct ? Athlon + additional fan solution approaches to comparable performance P4 ... Regards, Alex Z 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] Video card for imaging
Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging
Great Ken. Let's go off-line, OK ? Some fellows might be pissed off if we will continue to talk on-list about that issue. I listen to you very carefully and actually dragged your messages into separate, PC-related directory as a reference together with other nice Listeners helping me out with my issue. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken C Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging Alex, No worries about being on topic since we're not on list. Just about any decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days. Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be reasonably priced. Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is in the realm of performance for games. So unless you're a major gamer who has to get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or maims his opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly expensive 64 meg nVidia whatever card. Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves having to render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that up, though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be rendered. What graphics apps do you use? I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for graphics and web work. I have a Sony 19 monitor and was finding it bothersome and slow to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the way to see parts of the image I was working on. This was always a sore point with me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver. So, I built this box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors. My second monitor is a 15, which is fine because I just drag the dialogue boxed onto it. Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it. You need to install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card (Matrox sells one) that are dual head. This second card only needs to be basic enough to run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible with this function onXP). If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going to start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for XP - more would be better of course. And if you have more than 1 pc, networking is a lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access. I have used W98SE successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows ME, it's not a good product. Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually respond fairly quickly. I don't mind having a conversation with someone with similar interests. Regards, Ken - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? Regards, Alex Z 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] Building PC system for image editing
Hi all. Preparing to acquire IV ED within few weeks I've started to consider the PC system to handle post-processing and image achivating. Currently my regular system is quite old Compaq laptop running on 333 MHz Celeron + 192 MB memory. I realize that it will be probably quite hard - nearly impossible to run image editing software on 35 MB files expecting for reasonable performance from that machine, however laptop can still be used as scanner's host for download. I'm considering constructing myself the PC system (have previous experience doing that about 5 years ago though), however, it seems I'm out of date of the PC technology being confused by the choices of the parts. I rely on the List helping me out to clarify that and to understand what really I need. 1. Memory. I understand this is the most important resource for image processing. I'm planning to start from 512 MB right from the beginning, however the DRAM types seem to be overwhelming: SDRAM, DDR, RDRAM, DDR ECC (not talking about EDO which are probably out of questions though). I'm familiar with SDRAM technology, but others sounds to be quite new and unknown (for me, at least). I paid attention the DDR and RDRAM types are considerably more expensive then SDRAM. The question is whether this is really justified ? What is the benefits of those DDR and RDRAM against SDRAM ? Will I gain real life performance with those new types compared to SDRAM ? Finally, your opinion about DDR/RDRAM price/performance compared to SDRAM (let's say SDRAM 133 MHz) ? 2. Processor. I think I would opt for something like P4 1.6-1.7 GHz which sounds to be enough given there will be no serious constraints on the memory amount. What about AMD Ahtlon ? 3. As about HDD I think there is no too much choices to contemplate about. The bigger, faster and reliable is better. Depends on the local market offerings. BTW, should I pay more for SCSI interface ? What is RAID ? Any opinions about it ? 4. Display card. Which one would you recommend ? (not necessarily to be the most expensive though...) 5. CD-RW. Are there DVD-RW available for PC installation ? Are they worth the expense ? Well, other parts are non-brainers which doesn't really relates to image processing performance, so I'll not clatter the query by those. Would really appreciate any responses with clarifications. Links to the helpful sites are welcome as well. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Building PC system for image editing
No Richard. I'm aware about Macs, however, their market is very narrow here in Israel making them significantly more expensive then comparable PC and there will be additional hassles of figuring out sotware for them. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing Have you considered the Apple route at all? Richard 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: LS4000 vs IV ED
No jawed, I must be miss your posting. Would you please to remind me the links ? Was the IV ED sued to that test ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: LS4000 vs IV ED Alex, did you download the TIFF files from the comparisons I posted of single- and multi-pass scans? Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: 09 January 2002 22:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] LS4000 vs IV ED Considering the IV ED to be acquired in near future I just realized it hasn't multi-sample scanning ability offered by LS-4000 and some other models. The question is how this feature contributes to the scanning quality in real life. Do you really notice the difference between regular, one-pass result and those from multi-sampling ? Will I really miss this ability scanning either prints or slides ? Additional questions: Is the IV ED multi-pass enabled (as an opposite to multi-sampling) (at least with Vuescan) ? Regards, Alex Z -- -- 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] Kodak standard Q60 slide
Does anybody know where can I buy online (internationally) Kodak's standard Q60 calibration slide ? Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan
Thanks Jawed, appreciate your input. In fact, I mostly will scan slides rather then prints. (I shoot negatives only for portrait and other people-related stuff, using slides for anything else). What I meant under AF problem is actually too shallow DOF the Nikons seem to generate resulting to scanned slides with non-event sharpness over the slide surface. That was reported by 4000ED users and I suspect the LS-40 built in similar way... That's good you mentioned slide films scanning capability relatively to scanner's effective dynamic range, although I understand you have no much experience with slides. I mainly shoot Fuji Sensia II 100 which is actually consumer version of Astia, so based on your comments I can believe it will do good for that film. In fact, I'm still contemplating about LS-40 and Minolta's Elite II which looks a bit better in his specifications, however I was frightened a bit by the few recent reports about certain bug inherent in Elite II producing weird streaks (looking like deep scratches) due to probably dusty CCD or some hardware problem. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Hi. I posted a query in regard of LS-40 (IV ED) performance for the scanner users, however nobody answered yet. (I even though no LS-40 users on the List yet) Would appreciate if you will give your opinion about this scanner. I mainly care about his true dynamic range for the ability to pull out dark details (I shoot a lot of night scenic) against his noise level Well, you caught me, I own an LS40. I get the impression that noise in this scanner is *very low*, i.e. not relevant. Multi-scanning is possible (only with Vuescan) and in my opinion it gives *no improvement* in image quality. Others disagree. There is a difference - I perceive this difference as no improvement, that's all. Do you shoot negs for your night scenes? You will not have any problems with noise. BUT, if the film is relatively grainy, the LS40's 2900dpi resolution *will* tend to exaggerate the grain in the film. It's called grain aliasing and can make the grain in the scan look significantly more obvious than it looks in a print. The LS40's scanner software, Nikon Scan comes with an option called GEM (some acronym to do with grain, I forget the precise name) which is tweakable. I find that a setting of 2 reduces the graininess very nicely while having no detrimental effect on detail in the scan. Some of my films have aged badly (I suspect mostly due to my lack of care before processing) and show high levels of grain, requiring me to use GEM at the max setting. (Maybe I've misunderstood the kind of damage one can do to a film by storing it badly.) As far as I can tell, scanners with a resolution in the range 2400-3000dpi are the scanners that will tend to exaggerate grain the most. Additionally, the type of light in the LS40 (three LEDs that turn on and off rapidly so that only one colour, red, green or blue, is shining at any time) apparently tends to exaggerate grain (and defects such as scratches and dust). There is an argument for saying that if you run software that corrects for grain (GEM) or corrects for defects (ICE) then the scanner should resolve these features clearly - i.e. it makes the software's job easier, since the problems are clearer. Dunno if this argument is true. Dunno how much of a difference in image quality one actually sees when comparing scanners of the same resolution with the same software but with different lights. and the Nikon's known AF (insufficient DOF) problem from which 4000ED (and apparently LS-40) are reported to suffer from. Did you experienced DOF problem with either mounted/unmounted slides and negative strips ? No. I just can't be bothered looking and testing. Life is too short. Note I used a crappy 28-200mm Vivitar lens from the mid 80s and a Canon PS zoom camera, so my lenses are hardly the most demanding. If you were the average member of this list you probably would notice that the LS40 has a small DOF, though. I freely admit to being fairly un-picky - which is why I didn't want to respond to your original email, since I think my views are very much biased towards the lenient end of the scale. Does the LS-40 allows multi-pass or multi-sampling ? Only with Vuescan. You can get Vuescan to perform upto 16 passes. You can get Vuescan to performa a long-exposure pass (in an effort to see into the dark parts of the film). As I said before, I firmly believe these two options do not provide an increase in image quality, under any circumstances (slide or neg, good or bad exposures). As for dynamic range, I personally believe that Astia is just within the capabilities of the LS40, Provia F 100 is marginal and Velvia is just outside. Since I don't normally
[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan
Hi. I posted a query in regard of LS-40 (IV ED) performance for the scanner users, however nobody answered yet. (I even though no LS-40 users on the List yet) Would appreciate if you will give your opinion about this scanner. I mainly care about his true dynamic range for the ability to pull out dark details (I shoot a lot of night scenic) against his noise level and the Nikon's known AF (insufficient DOF) problem from which 4000ED (and apparently LS-40) are reported to suffer from. Did you experienced DOF problem with either mounted/unmounted slides and negative strips ? Does the LS-40 allows multi-pass or multi-sampling ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Remind us what scanner you have, Ken? Bear in mind that dark bits on Velvia are considered the evil of the filmscanning world - so dark that lots of scanners simply can't see properly! Multi-pass scanning with Vuescan in combination with the Long exposure pass, with my Nikon LS40, didn't improve the scanner's ability to see into the black. Velvia is definitely just a little too much for the LS40... (As is Kodachrome.) Jawed 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: SS4000
Well, I don't have an old stuff to scan, I actually started to shoot slides intensively about two years ago and wouldn't mind too much for the IR GEM and restoration abilities (however dust/scratches cleaning might be appealing, would the SS4000 be such great deal). Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ron Erter Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 Funny you should mention it. I am considering whether to return my scanner purchased two weeks ago to CDW and upgrade to a scanner with an IR channel. I have over 500 slides that were made between 1964 and 1970. They are not in very good condition at all. Paid $769 at CDW and have not yet sent in rebate. The Nikon supercoolscan 4000 ED is what I have in mind. Those edge softness reports bug me though. - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 7:06 AM Subject: [filmscanners] SS4000 First of all best wishes and prosperity in the New Year for all fellows and your families. That's might sound funny, but if someone would like to part with his/her SS4000 (given it is in good shape and fully operational) I would be glad helping you to get rid of one. (especially from European users, however overseas are an option as well) Given the scanner's reputation I realize that my desire might sound stupid, however if someone moving up to MF or digital... :-) Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Warning and huge disappointment: Minolta Scan Elite II shadow banding
Thanks Ralf, very valuable contribution. I was considering one as an option to SS4000, however I see there is still no alternative to excellent SS4000. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ralf Schmode Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Warning and huge disappointment: Minolta Scan Elite II shadow banding Hi everybody, after a week of relaxation in Denmark I was looking forward to receiving my brand new Minolta Scan Elite II today. It installed with no problem, and the scans looked good - at first sight. Unfortunately, one of the pics had what I thought was a huge horizontzal scratch. Okay, this thing really must be *huge* if ICE didn't get a hold on it. So I had the scanner eject the film strip and looked for the scratch. Unfortunately, I found none. This was when I realized I had a little more of a problem... Please have a look at http://schmode.net/banding.jpg (the slide isn't sharp but it shows the effect). I have used excessive gamma to bring out the problem. This is definitely not on the film, it is caused by the scanner. There is no difference to this effect as to ICE being in use or not, which is clear because there is no defect on the film for ICE to address. I am deeply disappointed of what Minolta dare to offer to their customers. Fortunately enough, I sorted out with the dealer *before* ordering that I might return the unit in exchange for a Nikon LS-40 if not satisfied which, as you will believe me, is the case. I'll probably address Minolta directly on this issue and I'd advise anyone using or considering the purchase of that scanner to be extremely careful in that respect. Greetings from Germany - Ralf -- My animal photo page on the WWW: http://schmode.net Find my PGP keys (RSA and DSS/DH) on PGP key servers (use TrustCenter certified keys only) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] SS4000
First of all best wishes and prosperity in the New Year for all fellows and your families. That's might sound funny, but if someone would like to part with his/her SS4000 (given it is in good shape and fully operational) I would be glad helping you to get rid of one. (especially from European users, however overseas are an option as well) Given the scanner's reputation I realize that my desire might sound stupid, however if someone moving up to MF or digital... :-) Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Editing application
What would you recommend as the most comprehensive image editing application (software) considering resource/performance ? I'm trying to evaluate what image evaluation/editing software would provide me with best, yet simple managing taking the least amount of system resources possible. Photoshop is probably the most famous, however I suspect it is quite heavy in use (considering my beginning level) and might be quite resource-hungry by itself (memory). What about Paint Shop Pro ? I was advised to try it out instead of Photoshop... Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Editing application
Thanks. Why it might be better then Paint Shop Pro ? I'm quite new to image processing so any opinion/thoughts are highly appreciated. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Traudt Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Editing application I would take a look at the new Photoshop Elements. steve. Steve Traudt Synergistic Visions Photography P.O. Box 2585 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Web Site: www.synvis.com *** Be glad of life because it gives you the chance to love and to work and to play and to look at the stars. -Henry van Dyke - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:42 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Editing application What would you recommend as the most comprehensive image editing application (software) considering resource/performance ? I'm trying to evaluate what image evaluation/editing software would provide me with best, yet simple managing taking the least amount of system resources possible. Photoshop is probably the most famous, however I suspect it is quite heavy in use (considering my beginning level) and might be quite resource-hungry by itself (memory). What about Paint Shop Pro ? I was advised to try it out instead of Photoshop... Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Minolta Scan Elite II Info
Thanks Ed, valuable info indeed. It's really worthwhile info to know that it will work with your software as previous versions did. Now, what about the quality ? Did you hear any opinions about his scanning capabilities ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Minolta Scan Elite II Info I've been working with someone to get VueScan working with the Minolta Scan Elite II, and I thought people might be interested in some technical details I've learned about this scanner. It's basically the same scanner as the Scan Dual II, except it adds an infrared channel and a Firewire interface (it also has a USB interface like the Scan Dual II). It does a single pass when acquiring the infrared data, unlike the Canon FS4000 and Acer ScanWit 2740 (which both require two passes to acquire the infrared data). It's manufactured by Avision and uses the same command set as the other Avision manufactured scanners (Minolta Scan Dual II, HP 5300 and HP 7400). Regards, Ed Hamrick -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: FS 4000 Review
Reading just the first page of the review, got confused a bit. All the reviews I read online so far (I did quite extensive research in regard of market choices for 2800 - 4000 dpi resolution consumer scanners which included several models from Nikon, Minolta, SS4000 and FS4000 and considering price/performance, that SS4000 beats all others Big way). The FS4000 was actually my serious considerations until I learned that the dynamic range of the SS4000 is noticeably wider which is very important for me (I shoot a lot of night scenic), so I'm still saving my hard-earned cents for the Polaroid. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Håkon T Sønderland Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] FS 4000 Review Don't know if this review has been mentioned here or not: http://www.popphoto.com/Film/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=114 It does seem like a very reasonable choice and since the Nikon LS4000 is almost twice the price here (in Norway) and the Polariod SS4000 is nowhere to be seen, I though this would be a good contender for replacing my LS30. I know someone will say the SS4000 is a better choice, but it's no longer sold here and for my use I'm inclined to want dust removal with my scanner. I'm not in a hurry, so would like to know if there is any contenders in the pipline this spring? I would like to keep the cost below $1000. Haakon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Possible two-pass trick on the Minolta Multi-Scan Pro?
Ed, didn't you get the Elite II from Minolta yet to add his support to the Vuescan ? I'm waiting impatiently for this model reviews and your opinion about one. (Still cannot decide about 4000dpi of SS4000 or ICE 2820 dpi offered by Elite II when it will hit the market). Has anybody seen online reviews of one already ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 5:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Possible two-pass trick on the Minolta Multi-Scan Pro? In a message dated 12/26/2001 5:42:05 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed Hamrick posted a few weeks ago that the MMSP has a 9600 dpi stepper motor, but uses a divisor of 2 or 3 to achieve 4800 dpi or 3200 dpi. Since he didn't say a divisor of 1 is possible, I assume it is not. I didn't test it, but I suspect a divisor of 1 will work fine. However, I'm not convinced that this would be at all useful. Regards, Ed Hamrick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Possible two-pass trick on the Minolta Multi-Scan Pro?
Thanks. Valuable contribution indeed. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bernie Ess Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Possible two-pass trick on the Minolta Multi-Scan Pro? All what I have heard about the new Minoltas is that they do have a grain problem - recently someone added a commentary about the new Elite II in a german newsgroup, saying that he has got unacceptable grain in 35mm Scans. There are similar complaints in the imaging- resource- Forum about scanners... Greetings Bernhard - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 5:12 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Possible two-pass trick on the Minolta Multi-Scan Pro? Ed, didn't you get the Elite II from Minolta yet to add his support to the Vuescan ? I'm waiting impatiently for this model reviews and your opinion about one. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
RE: filmscanners: File output format
Thanks Teemu. I will check your link, however I did search via Google and those I figured out mentioned that the TIFF internal data arrangement can be customized and depends on the source producer. This is the reason I asked about particular scanner. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Teemu Mottonen Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: File output format On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Alex Zabrovsky wrote: Thanks. The friend of mine owns Minolta Scan Speed. Unfortunately, I didn't find exact raw file format it downloads after the scan. It is referred as TIFF, but what is exact data format inside in unclear. I can only assume that this is RGB 24 or 36 bits/pixel, however I need to know the exact color samples locations in related to each pixel location (does the file looking like RGBRGBRGBRGB... where each subsequent RGB samples express the pixel information ?) Alex, have you tried searching the net for the TIFF file specification ? That might be more fruitful than asking here. The following came up pretty easily with a google.com search: http://www.libtiff.org/document.html Cheers, Teemu. -- Teemu Möttönen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.teemu.net/ Hundreds of original Formula 1 photos viewable by driver, team event http://www.f1photo.com/photographers/teemu_mottonen/tm_welcome.htm
filmscanners: File output format
Hi. I have an idea for certain image processing for scanned images, however what I'm missing is the information what is the unprocessed raw format straight from the scanner. Is the downloaded raw file TIFF only ? What is his pixels format ? (is it RGB 24 bit/pixel or something other like YUV, YCC or other color spaces ?) Any clue ? Regards, Alex Z
RE: filmscanners: File output format
Thanks. The friend of mine owns Minolta Scan Speed. Unfortunately, I didn't find exact raw file format it downloads after the scan. It is referred as TIFF, but what is exact data format inside in unclear. I can only assume that this is RGB 24 or 36 bits/pixel, however I need to know the exact color samples locations in related to each pixel location (does the file looking like RGBRGBRGBRGB... where each subsequent RGB samples express the pixel information ?) Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of michael shaffer Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: File output format Alex writes ... ... what I'm missing is the information what is the unprocessed raw format straight from the scanner. You probably ought to be addressing some scanner or software in particular (Vuescan?), but the data is almost always RGB (possibly IR) at a depth set by the scanner's firmware (8bit/channel, 10, 12, 14 ...). Is the downloaded raw file TIFF only ? TIFF is the usual format. Regarding the other color space stuff, that would approach proprietary information, depending on who's software your speaking of. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
Thanks for the offer, Jack, but I'm in Israel, so ordering film from US is quite cumbersome... :-) Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:22 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll Hi Alex, it is fairly pricey. I just checked the BH site and it lists for $5.79US compared to $4.95US for Reala. I buy it locally for about a $2.00 a roll premium. It is 800 speed, but I usually rate it at 500. There is very little grain for a high speed film. I believe it is a four layer film like Reala (I don't think NGH II is). Can you order from Calumet? They sell five packs for $31.99US ($6.40 a roll). Jack -Original Message- From: Alex Zabrovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll Jack, how did you find the NPZ ? (BTW, is that ISO 800 or 400 ?) This film is quite expensive here in Israel, though the NPH (400) can be purchased at very affordable price in pro shops. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:30 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll I just switched from NPH II to NPZ with good results. Before that I used NPH, also a good choice. When there is enough light, I love Reala. But shooting a lot indoors, high speed is a must. On trips, I always carry both, NPZ and Reala. Good luck Herb. Jack -Original Message- From: Herb Bauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll Hi everyone, I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital post-processing, there's really no time. I'd like to solicit this group's recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan. I have read good things about Kodak Supra 400 and Fujicolor NPS 160, and the purpose is mostly hand-held travel pictures under various lighting conditions. Many thanks in advance, Herb
RE: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Ireland... Love that country. Visited it in 1998 for two weeks, walking all over Dublin, driving to the west coast to Galway. Shoot about 12-15 rolls. Should you ever visit Israel, just write me a few words. I'll point you out to high-quality, reliable labs and a few pro photo shops where you will be able to purchase well stored pro films. BTW, I've tried some lab in Dublin for two of the films I burned there - not too successfully. I assume I just didn't find right place... Regards, Alex Z Israel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Bloor Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a tough place for security. I'm amazed. I live in Ireland, fly in and out regularly and have never been forced to have film X-rayed. If you think Ireland is tough try Stockholm, Perth (Australia) and Schippol (Amsterdam) airports. In general I have found the US amazingly lax on security and most places in Asia very helpful as regards film. I now try and buy film at my destination where possible. I have reliable source of refrigerated professional Fuji film in Budapest, Helsinki, Bangkok, Singapore and, of course, Galway. I would be interested in recommendations from list members for processing labs across Europe Asia and in Mexico. Does anyone know if it is still safe to post films to labs in the UK ? I normally send all my processing to a lab there. I don't want to get flamed for starting an off topic discussion. If anyone wants to contribute but thinks this is OT, please mail me off list. Mike Bloor
RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
Jack, how did you find the NPZ ? (BTW, is that ISO 800 or 400 ?) This film is quite expensive here in Israel, though the NPH (400) can be purchased at very affordable price in pro shops. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:30 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll I just switched from NPH II to NPZ with good results. Before that I used NPH, also a good choice. When there is enough light, I love Reala. But shooting a lot indoors, high speed is a must. On trips, I always carry both, NPZ and Reala. Good luck Herb. Jack -Original Message- From: Herb Bauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll Hi everyone, I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital post-processing, there's really no time. I'd like to solicit this group's recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan. I have read good things about Kodak Supra 400 and Fujicolor NPS 160, and the purpose is mostly hand-held travel pictures under various lighting conditions. Many thanks in advance, Herb
RE: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?
Rob, there are many Mailing Lists and Forums available online for any major brand (Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax) where you will find a lot of that brand specialists who can surely advise you about the brand and third-party lenses you would go with. I myself is Minolta shooter actively participating in Minolta Mailing List for a long time and have been advised and advised myself to others in this regard. I don't know which camera system do you use, so will hold from speaking particularly about something special. One word only: basically all 28-80 (especially those of f/3.5-5.6) are so-called kit lenses produced especially to e sold in kits with low and low-mid specified bodies. They featured by very cheap glass capable of delivering mediocre results, since the main goal of such lenses is the lowest possible price rather then quality. In optics the rule: you get what you pay for has almost 100 % meaning... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses? Sorry about the OT question, but I was wondering if anyone on the list could suggest forums where I could ask questions about lenses? I'm getting a little frustrated by the lack of sharpness in photos taken with a Sigma 28-80 f3.5-5.6 zoom, and I'm wondering just how much difference it will make to my 35mm scans if the lenses were better. Basically I just don't know how much visible improvement there would be in 2700ppi scans from say a decent Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Contax lens. I get significantly sharper results with my 50mm f1.7 lens, but it seems to have colour aberration problems (red aberration). I'm trying to avoid garbage-in-garbage out as much as possible in the scans. :) Replies offlist would be appreciated. Thanks! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
This is indeed one of the points to consider... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Lew Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner Did you know that Polaroid is bankrupt? I don't know if that will affect any future warranty or not but the lesson you should take home is buy product from a bankrupt company at your own risk. On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Alex Zabrovsky wrote: Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous 200 $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Well, I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. Since living outside US I'm in any case no legible for Polaroid's famous 200 $ rebate so both SS4000 and FS4000 would cost me almost similar until I bothered by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet more recently, the reports have indicated it is on par with the newer dICE. More recent reports have been more positive. Perhaps there have been some software improvements, or the first reports were corrupted for some reason. The price is very reasonable if you are looking at under $800 US. Of course, if you can find one, the SS4000 might be a worthwhile consideration, if the price is right. Here in Canada it is still considerably more than in the US. I don't know how it is priced in Australia, but if it comes close to US pricing, it is an absolute steal. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe Polaroid!) But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer, who also sells package PC deals, has just put one onto his shelf at A$1499 (A$=~US$.51)..?!? I thought I was the only local who even knew what a filmscanner was :-\.. He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do.. If anyone's interested I'll report back, but it will only be a lightweight test. Unless of course I end up buying it.. :-) mt
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Mark, I would appreciate your work on that issue. In case you only would like to share your opinion off-list, please don't forget me... :-) Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark T. Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments.. But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US revealed that: - It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and does *really* nice work on negatives - FARE is quite effective, and though I have not used ICE/dICE, it appears to give very acceptable results - It has what appears to be an impressive dynamic range, but... :-( - the catch..? - It suffers from noise, or at least this sample did... In dark areas of slides a lot of that dynamic range is marred by noise. Admittedly it is 'nice' noise (?), ie it's very fine, very even, and not streaky, but it means that for a person like me who uses transparencies mostly, and has a bad habit of underexposing them, this isn't the 4000 dpi scanner for me. (And no, I don't think this noise is grain or grain aliasing - I know what that stuff looks like :-), and the slides were K25's..) I currently have an Acer 2720 (one from a good batch!), and it is definitely better in the 'shadowy realms' . Not because it sees more shadow detail - the Canon beats the Acer by a very small margin here, BUT if you wind the brightness/gamma up, the Acer's shadows stay smooth well beyond the point at which the Canon goes *quite* noisy... Note that we *are* talking fairly deep shadows here, so for well-exposed images I am sure you would be very happy with the results - but for my style of photography, I need that dark stuff! Ah well.. On negatives however, it looked very nice, and produced superb colours, esp from Reala, without even touching the settings.. I didn't have time to give it a good workout on overexposed negatives to see if the noise showed up much there. I'll post a fuller report soon, and if anyone wants samples I'll stick a couple of snippets on the web somewhere.. mt Art wrote: I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time.. snip
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Well, another opinion is always welcome. I realize that absence of dust removal system will cost me some time doing that manually, but anyway this choice cannot be considered as mistake. I've heard good opinions about FARE more then once, but apparently noticeable wider dynamic range would be more important for me due to shooting slides mostly and especially liking night and twilling scenery. Would the FS4000 match the SS4000 in this regard I wouldn't hesitate. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tom Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000. I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend hours on dust and scratches removing. Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394
As far as I heard, there are two versions of XP: XP Home or XP Professional (or XP Office). Among certain differences, Professional offers immediate support for FireWire while Home not. There are the chances I'm wrong, but that what I heard. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian Jackson Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394 Svante, Thats the problem. it isnt! Ian - Original Message - From: Svante Kleist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:55 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Firewire IEEE1394 Ian, Since IEEE 1394 is provided by Windows 2000 out-of-the-box, I expect that the same is valid for XP. Svante Kleist, NEMESIS systemDesign, Stockholm --On Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:17 + Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know if there is an upgrade to Windows XP to allow a IEEE1394 Firewire PCI card to work? I was planning to buy a Minolta Scan Multi Pro Ian
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
Paul, I understand your frustration from his test setup but camera body wouldn't mind a lot. You obviously meant lens not to be adequate for such kind of comparisons, right ? Though not being Canon user, I still think that Elan would suit the test but the equipped with pro-quality optics. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Graham Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting reading, but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4 (among other things) with this is plainly ridiculous I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, paul http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
