[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi lists, That is interesting since SCSI is a simple thing to add to a PC, you have to wonder why they went GPIB, which is a rather slow interface used for electronic instruments. National Instruments more or less owns the GPIB business. There is a very hidden form on their website where you can turn in some old GPIB to get half price (last time I looked) on a new one. I managed to find a 232 to GPIB converter on the surplus market, so I never pursued the trade up route. SCSI was not mature on the PC back when the Leaf was developed, and every card used a different driver etc. GPIB was fast enough, as the limiting factor was the scan time, not the transfer time. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi, I find ink jet prints look a bit odd in the dark areas as there is more ink plopped on the page. Have you seen a quad-tone/Piezography print, as opposed to a black-only inkjet print? I haven't seen any BW quads. Then, I suggest you do ;-) I'd like to understand why you use Tri-X rather than more modern film like TMX. TMX is a chunky film IMO (as are all the tab grain films to me). Tri-X has a very nice tonal curve, and exceptional grain characteristics when exposed and developed (D-76 1:1) properly. It's a look I prefer. Neopan 1600 in XTOL actually has a look like Tri-X IMO. I'm not being critical here, rather I'd like to understand the reasoning behind your choice. No problem. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi Alex, Austin, I noticed you use Leafscan 45. I do. So I begun to consider selling my leg and arm (and also my wife, car, house and children) :-) for Nikon LS9000 till encountered people's recommendation to go Leafscan 45 route instead. What can you say about this one ? Can it still compete wuality-wise with contemporary machines home-oriented such as Nikon LS9000 ? I am not sure. I primarily use it for BW, and do little color with it. It is a three pass color scanner, so scanning times will be 3x as long. I scan medium format BW at 4 minutes per scan (the secret is not using the default exposure time, but setting it to minimum...which is plenty for negatives...for slides, you want to use optimum, so it's even a lot slower). Is using Leafscan 45 indeed as much bother as I suspect comparative to desktop film scanners ? Probably less of a bother, if you understand setpoints and tonal curves. It has a very basic, but entirely capable user interface...and IMO, has everything you need...setpoints and tonal curves. I suspect Leafscan is Mac only, am I wrong ? You are wrong. I use it with W2k. I'm PC user. I don't shoot BW (at least for now), neither planning on that in forseable future. Then I might suggest a different scanner, especially if you are shooting slides. The advantage, for me, of the Leafscan is it is a true grayscale scanner, not an RGB scanner as all other scanners are, and I believe it gives exceptional BW results. I also do not find any need to use USM, as everyone else seems to require. My scans are tack sharp: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/Mv03bCropw.jpg (not that you can see much from a web image...) Any comments on it are appreciated (as well as any hints to Leafscan 45 active user groups). Yahoo has an active Leafscan user's group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Leafscan/ Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
Hi Laurie, I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) It's not an issue if you do a couple of things...as you touch on... First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: Exactly. That alleviates the issue you bring up of switching inks and flushing. second you need to use special inksets. For BW, yes...quadtone inks. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS... I suggest instead of CIS, getting a printer that has LARGE ink cartridges, like the Epson 3000. They are 4oz each I believe. Very good size, compared to something like the 1270/1280. ...but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. ...that, IMO, is a waste of time and money. You'll spend more in money on flush kits, and clogs than it's worth. Printers are reasonably cheap, and it's the ink that seems to add up in cost, at least for me. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. I personally recommend the Piezography set-up, though I use the original Piezography that was actually developed by Sundance/R9, not by Inkjet Mall/Cone as was claimed, though sold by them as Piezography. Inkjet Mall/Cone has a new system that I have not used. I think the old stuff is still available from R9 (www.bwguys.com). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. Hi Lotusm50, Do you have the original, or the ICS system? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: NikonScan negative question (was Dynamic range question)
Hi Roy, Did you not have the ability to manually set the setpoints with this software? Regards, Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roy Harrington Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 11:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: NikonScan negative question (was Dynamic range question) A while back I had a similar difficulty with some other scanning software. I found that by scanning the film as a positive rather than a negative the software's notion of black/white points was much better -- especially in the thin regions of the negative. Roy Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Dynamic range question
Hi Berry, Austin, with respect to your last sentence, isn't the point really that the contrast range of negative film is greater than slide film? I'm not sure what contrast range is, but I know what density range is. Slide film has less exposure latitude, and records on a higher density range. Negative film has more exposure latitude and records on a smaller density range. Negative film records a higher scene density range (which is really the same property as has more exposure latitude), and records that higher scene density range in a smaller density range on the film. What I mean is that you can lose either the shadows or the highlights... No modern film scanner I am aware of will lose shadows or highlights from negative film with proper setpoints. A scanner *may* lose either from slide film, depending on the scanner, and the setpoints. It is a misunderstanding that a higher dMax allows a film scanner to digs into the shadows...you simply expose longer to dig into the shadows, and if the scanner isn't capable of recording the entire range, it will be at the expense of the highlights, obviously. but slide film requires more precise exposures and is more limited in the range that it can handle. Slide film requiring more precise exposure when taking the image (not when scanning) is a different issue. Where I live and shoot, there is great contrast (high elevation southwest desert), and I think that is one reason for me to shoot negative film. I never lose either end that way with the great latitude of negative color film. But I'd like to hear what disadvantages there may be to this approach, if any, in my situation. None if you don't plan on projecting the images. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 120 film scanners - which to get?
Tomek, I'm a bit dissappointed by the number of comments as I thought that more people would be able to give an advice on what the options are for MF film quality scanning at the price of about 1000-1200 $. If you are a bit technically inclined, I would highly recommend a Leafscan45. For color, it is slower than current scanners, as it is a three pass scanner, but for BW, it has a true BW mode (does not scan BW in RGB) and is as fast as a modern scanner, and IMO gives superior results. The software is spartan, but complete and will allow you to get exceptional scans with no (IMO unnecessary) frills. It handles any format up to 4x5 that you can get a Beseler 45 holder for, and has a very superb set of rotating film holders. If you are interested, I can tell you more. If you scan mostly BW, it's really a good option, given the quality of the scans and the format flexibility. For color, as I said, though it gives exceptional scans, it can be slow. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Hi Laurie, Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) You are too kind ;-) If your remarks are based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I was only extrapolating from the original statement of the analogy by the previous poster using their language and argument structure. Yes, I am referring only to what I quoted. If you are referring to other elements in my commentary, please go on and tell me more. Perhaps I should read your post in it's entirety. I may learn something ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. Out of curiosity, why? Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable for getting email while traveling. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed they don't record passwords, etc). I have not had any problem what so ever with them (mail2web.com). I do suggest using the secure login, and if you can't get in using their standard login, the advanced has always worked for me. It's fantastic at airports, at clients etc., anywhere you can get a browser, you can get your email. Also, a number of people I know use it to de-spam their inbox, prior to downloading their email to their email program. I wonder what would happen if my wife is logging on at home at the same time I am trying to get my mail via mail2web? If you have a different email account, not a thing. Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can... Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what technical area). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Art, That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide. That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would be 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels. You are correct for a magnification of 1:1, but not all scanners are 1:1. If the exact same sensor was used in a medium format film scanner, which had, say a 2 wide film frame, that would be scanned at 2000 ppi, since the same number of sensors would be reading information projected on it from a film frame twice as wide. As a note, some MF scanners do scan 1:1, for all film formats. I believe *most* 35mm only scanners use a 1 wide sensor. Most MF scanners use a 2.25 (6cm) wide sensor. The spec sheet for a particular scanner should show that information. Having multiple magnifications requires a couple of moving stages, and it's typically more economical (these days) and accurate to simply fix these stages, and scan everything at the same resolution. The quick version of SPI/PPI/DPI is scans are done in samples per inch, and the resultant image data is pixels. Pixels per inch get sent to the printer, which converts the pixels to dots, and prints dots per inch... This isn't a correction to what you said, just, I believe, a simplification. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
How much better are they? Will a Minolta (for instance) handle my rippled slides just fine, or will it be only somewhat better? I'm trying to decide whether I should invest in a new scanner, or fix the old one. I wish scanners had standardized DOF specs. Paul, I would be more interested in the carriers than anything else, if I were you...since a good carrier might reduce your rippling by quite a bit. Hence, why I suggested the Leaf...as you could remove the film from the slide mount, and it uses standard Beseler 45 film carriers (as well as a very nice custom set of rotating film holders), which would allow you to get about as flat as you could with a glassless carrier...and...glass carriers are available (in 4x5). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi Paul, You can probably buy a near perfect Leaf45 for around $1k. They have quite good DOF. Regards, Austin My LS-2000 finally died, so I'm in the market for a replacement. However, I have tons of slides that survived a fire, and that have nasty curls to them, and the Nikon never did a good job on them anyway, due to its shallow DOF. I tried glass mounts, and got Newton rings, so I tried anti-Newton glass mounts, and got visible grain. What scanners in the $1000 range have greater DOF than the Nikon? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera? Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same thing. In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing different light, unless there is a filter over the sensing elements that provides that function. Here's where we disagree: I don't see the lower spatial resolution for color affecting the spectral resolution for color. The actual measurements are identical (other than being first generation in digital, second in scans). Why do you keep bringing up 1st/2nd hand? The Bayer pattern image is in fact 2nd hand as well. It is in fact a resampling because of the Bayer pattern reconciliation, so it, too, is a second generation image. If you had the raw data, it would do you no good. So, I don't buy into this 2nd generation/1st generation argument. Also, with the Bayer pattern sensor, if a detail has a predominance in a particular color, and that falls on the sensor that isn't of that color, it'll be missed. That isn't as significant as it may sound, but it is significant, and reduces the fidelity of the overall system. So for features large enough to see, the Bayer camera is providing full color measurement. And with a lot lower noise than scanners. Lower noise? What you are calling lower noise is dubious. Perceived lower noise does not mean higher fidelity. How do you know it's lower noise? Have you actually done a comparison of it to the original image scene to see what was noise and what was not? The Bayer pattern reconciliation introduces substantial noise, it has to by nature. Also, lack of detail make it appear as less noise. Again, cartoons appear to have very little noise, and they have no detail. Film also has a higher image density capturing ability, which current CCDs do not, and as such. image density capturing ability??? If you are talking about dynamic range or latitude, the tests I've seen show the dSLRs superior to slide film. Dynamic range (NOT latitude, those are two entirely different things). I was talking about negative film, and no, there is no digital sensor that has the overall ability of negative film. Also, there's the issue of noise. Scanned film is a lot noisier than direct digital capture. Not necessarily true. Some may be, but that's due to poor film/scanner/development, as well as the perception that digital has less noise, when, in most cases, it isn't really less noise, but reduced fidelity. It also depends on how you measure noise, and what you classify as noise. It's simply not a 1:1 comparison. Just the noise problem alone makes scanned film problematic for color reproduction: the bit depth after the noise is much less than digital. My experience contradicts this. BTW, the 35mm camera/lenses you use for your scanning would be ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Paul, Lower noise? What you are calling lower noise is dubious. Perceived lower noise does not mean higher fidelity. How do you know it's lower noise? Have you actually done a comparison of it to the original image scene to see what was noise and what was not? The Bayer pattern reconciliation introduces substantial noise, it has to by nature. Also, lack of detail make it appear as less noise. Again, cartoons appear to have very little noise, and they have no detail. I may regret getting involved in this discussion, but it's hard to let this pass. In real life, you don't have to compare a digital image to the original scene to know what's noise and what isn't. Blue sky is about as noiseless a source as you can find, so any noise you see is in the capture process. Blue sky is hardly noiseless. That doesn't mean that there can't be other sources of noise, some more significant than others, of course, but to assume that there is simply no noise in a blue sky is, IMO, a bad assumption. Do you have any actual data to back up this claim? I've analyzed a lot of sky, and certainly wouldn't make a generalization like that. Also, a Bayer pattern interpolator doesn't introduce noise, unless it's processing an image that already looks like noise, and it can't find anything coherent to do edge detection on. Of course the Bayer pattern reconciliation introduces noise, it has to by it's very nature. Any time you are interpolating, you have a high chance of introducing noise. Noise is, in this case, is introduced in both the spatial domain and the color domain. No field in real life (even sky) is entirely even, where all the values are exactly the same (or precisely linear) across a significant space. There are many different interpolation methodologies, of course, some better than others (and I've designed quite a few), but any interpolation algorithm used for Bayer pattern reconciliation will introduce noise. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
my claim was that 900x900 pixels of a 1Ds image look a lot better than 900x900 pixels of a 4000 dpi scanned image if you print them at the same size. David, Your terms are amorphous. looks a lot better in what regard? What may look a lot better to you, or to anyone else, may not look a lot better to someone else...depending on their experience and criteria. BTW, previously, your claim was from a 35mm camera...but you haven't listed what 35mm camera/film you used to do this comparison... I'll take it, since you listed the cameras you have, that you used one of the MF cameras you have to do this comparison. If that's true, then you should realize that typically, MF lenses are designed for a larger image circle than 35mm lenses, and therefore, that same 900x900 part of the film can be quite different... I, personally, note a difference when I zoom in and examine raw scanned pixels, between my Zeiss lenses for my Contax cameras, vs my Rollei 2.8F and even my Hasselblad. So, are you using MF for your comparison, or do you have a 35mm that you are doing this with? So, IMO, to make a fair/meaningful comparison, you should take into consideration the size difference in the sensor vs the film, and also qualify your criteria for better. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Paul, when you look at the sky, you don't. How do you know you don't? But the point is that the amount of noise you get in the digital image depends upon the hardware, so it obviously can't all be actual noise coming from the sky. My old DiMage 7 is _very_ noisy, even at ISO 100. My Nikon LS-2000, scanning Kodachrome 25, or for that matter E6 slide film, has a lot of noise, presumably from film grain, too. My Canon 10D has much less noise in the final result. But that doesn't mean that every combination of film/scanner has noticeable noise generated by these things in sky regions. Noise is random Noise does not have to be random. It can be random, or deterministic. It's still noise. Anything that decreases fidelity is considered noise. , meaning that if you repeat the process, you get different answers. If you repeat the Bayer interpolation on the same raw data, you get the same answers. That's not noise, it's distortion. Distortion is noise. I really don't care what you want to call it, and I'm surprised you're arguing semantics here...instead of arguing the points. What's more, for real-world images, with the sort of detail on which people would recognize a loss of resolution, e.g., sharp edges, modern Bayer algorithims _correctly_ interpolate, producing what looks right to the eye. No, they don't %100 correctly interpolate the information %100 of the time (unless you're talking about someone with very diminished vision). Edges aren't always sharp, and sharp is really an amorphous term as well. I'd love to see some actual data you base this claim on...having written quite a few Bayer pattern reconciliation algorithms, I know it's just simply not true...and we did experiment with full three color data to see how well the algorithms worked. Looking right to the eye has nothing to do with fidelity of the image. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Paul, But that doesn't mean that every combination of film/scanner has noticeable noise generated by these things in sky regions. I assume drum scanners do much better, but they're a heck of a lot more expensive than a Canon Digital Rebel. As do high end CCD scanneras as well, and scanner operation is critical as well. Anyone can make a mess of most anything. Noise does not have to be random. It can be random, or deterministic. It's still noise. Anything that decreases fidelity is considered noise. Distortion is noise. I really don't care what you want to call it, and I'm surprised you're arguing semantics here...instead of arguing the points. This is not a semantic issue. Noise is _fundamentally_ different from distortion. Being a professional EE, and having designed many systems that deal specifically with noise (signal testing, audio and video), I disagree. I know of no precise definition of noise that would exclude distortion from being noise. Noise can have many sources, as can distortion...and fundamentally, they are the same...both are a reduction in the fidelity of the signal. But the point here is that if a Bayer pattern generated noise then it would be filling in the pixels in some unpredictable, and therefore ultimately useless, manner. But it doesn't. No one said the Bayer pattern generated noise. It's the Bayer pattern reconciliation (as in the interpolation used to fill in the missing color information) that can induce noise. As I've said, noise does not have to be unpredictable. It's simply a reduction in the fidelity of the reproduction of the original image, period. Call it what you want, I really don't care. On the sort of image detail that matters, modern Bayer interpolation algorithms do the Right Thing, and do so consistently and effectively. You say that, but I KNOW it's simply not true, and you're using amorphous terms like do the right thing...that's VERY unscientific, and hardly quantifiable. You also say it providing no basis for your claim, but your claim. If you have some actual data, please, I'd love to see it. I have direct personal experience with this, and I'm not sure you do. If you do, I'd like to hear it. So while it's theoretically possible that a Bayer camera will miss a red dot on a white wall, because light from the red dot happens to fall only on a red pixel, who cares? That isn't what's being talked about. It's not that it'll mis a red dot in the middle of a white wall, but that a red wall is made up of many gradients, and is not an even field. It may interpolate a point 98,132,12 that is in reality 112,138,12. Qualitatively, Bayer sensors work extremely well, so it's closer to the truth to say that a six-million sensor Bayer chip produces a six megapixel image than to say that it really only produces a 1.5 megapixel image. I agree completely with that, and have never said any differently (nor has anyone else in this discussion that I am aware of). But, to claim the Bayer patter reconciliation is %100 spot on is simply wrong. It may be decent, and in fact, quite decent, but it's not perfect. It is still, unarguably, a reduction in fidelity. The significance of that reduction is debatable, but it's still a reduction. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera? Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same thing. In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing different light, unless there is a filter over the sensing elements that provides that function. Also, they aren't really the same. The scanner sensor is, obviously, spectrally responding to the film. Film also has a higher image density capturing ability, which current CCDs do not, and as such. You also can't use Zone system compensation with an original CCD, but you can with film, and therefore have a far larger BW image density range than you would with a CCD. Number of places isn't relevant. A minimum number of components doesn't insure the least amount of distortion. But the errors a system introduces tends to be the product of the errors of each element in the system. Agreed, but if 6 elements are in a system, and each only produces a .001% error, and in another system there is only one element which produces .1% error, then, as I said, the number really is irrelevant. The other issue is color resolution. Since 4000dpi and higher scanned images are so much softer than digital images, they have, if anything, lower color resolution per pixel. Why do you claim they are softer? What, specifically, is softer? Because transitions at sharp edges in the image take more pixels. That simply means that the image is more accurately reproduced. Anyway, this really has nothing to do with color resolution...and I must admit, I'm surprised, knowing that you know as much as you do, that you say this. Softer or not, that is a detail issue, not a color resolution issue. We seem to be agreeing hereg: spectral response and spatial response are different. That's good, I hadn't seen you clarify which you were talking about, and wanted to make sure we were both talking about the same thing. ...If 35mm film only had, as you said I believe, 2700PPI of image data, then all the people who have high end Imacon/Leaf/Drum scanners have simply wasted their money...yet all of us can clearly get better images out of scanning using these higher SPI scanners... Isn't most of that cleaning up the grain? AS I mentioned, that really depends on the film/exposure/development. In some cases, yes, of course...TMax 3200 would really make a mess ;-) The Minolta 5400 samples of actual images show no real advantage over even 2700 dpi scans, but grain aliasing is a lot less obnoxious. I would certainly believe that with certain films, and I also can't speak at all about the Minolta 5400 as I am unfamiliar with the design of that scanner, so I can't say if it's good or bad... What scanner/film/development/camera etc. do you use to base your statements on 35mm film on? Nikon 8000; Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Reala; Fuji GS645S, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 645. Good scanner, good film...but I don't see any 35mm cameras there, and after all, we were talking about 35mm, weren't we? ;-) I also have a GS645 (not S) and love it, but it's way too sharp and really needs to be stopped down...not for sharpness, but for what it does to the out of focus areas... I also use a number of Rolleiflexs...2.8F both Xenotar and Planar (no, I haven't done any tests with the lenses yet ;-) and a 6008...all superb cameras. You should be able to get some simply stunning images from the Rolleis and your scanner. BTW, MF lenses are not going to give you as sharp an image per pixel as 35mm will, simply because of lense design considerations due to the area coverage. If you want to to see what 35mm is capable of, get some Contax and a Zeiss lense, most of which are very sharp, and have pleasing OOF area renderings... Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital camera pixels. It's not wrong. If you are talking image fidelity, then it depends on what aspect of image fidelity is more important to you. CLEARLY the scanned pixel has higher color fidelity...and it may in fact have higher image detail fidelity as well... Even if the digicam image is sharper, sharpness may not mean higher image fidelity. You seem to have a conflation of concepts here. To my ear color fidelity should mean something on the order of the ability to accurately reproduce colors. That is what fidelity means... Scanners, the film itself, and direct digital capture all use the same concept for color reproduction (three measurements to approximate an infinite distribution), and so there isn't a conceptual difference between RGB from a scanner and RGB from a digital camera. No, but you seem to be missing that they can each have different abilities to reproduce color accurately. A microphone from a telephone and a high end studio microphone both use the same concept, but their ability to accurately reproduce audio is entirely different. If anything, the scanner is going to be worse, because you have the scanner's spectral response interpreting the film's spectral response. Two places for things to go wrong as opposed to one. Number of places isn't relevant. A minimum number of components doesn't insure the least amount of distortion. The other issue is color resolution. Since 4000dpi and higher scanned images are so much softer than digital images, they have, if anything, lower color resolution per pixel. Why do you claim they are softer? What, specifically, is softer? Anyway, this really has nothing to do with color resolution...and I must admit, I'm surprised, knowing that you know as much as you do, that you say this. Softer or not, that is a detail issue, not a color resolution issue. Of course, color resolution is largely irrelevant. The human eye has abysmally poor color resolution, and Bayer sensors have an appropriate ratio of luminance to color resolution. Now hold on. Are you talking spatial resolution of color, or ability to discern tones? If you are talking the former, yes, our ability to discern colors spatially is lower than our ability to discern detail, but as far as discerning tonality, that is just not true. We can discern more color tones than gray tones, by a huge margin...and our ability to discern color tones is in fact superb. Something on the order of 16M tones the human eye can discern. That's pretty high resolution. So it seems to me that the sense of unhappiness with Bayer color that many people have is completely unjustified/misplaced. The only question is what pixel density do you need to print at to get the image quality you want. There are lots of people who come up with 9MP or so as the digital equivalent of 35. And there's a lot who come up with 16M, and 24M and 96M etc. People who see a 35mm frame as having 24MP of information are seriously dizzy. I'm not sure what you base that on really, as it's simply wrong. If 35mm film only had, as you said I believe, 2700PPI of image data, then all the people who have high end Imacon/Leaf/Drum scanners have simply wasted their money...yet all of us can clearly get better images out of scanning using these higher SPI scanners... A file with a full 24 MP of dSLR quality pixels would be a thing of amazing beauty. Stitch together four 6MP dSLR images and print it at 16x24, and you'll have a print that 35mm can never dream of, whatever printing technology you use. Seriously, I really think you need to update your film/processing/exposure/scanning if you believe what you believe and what you believe is based on your real experience you have. Or, perhaps, you simply like processed images, that lack high detail, but are sharp...and that's fine, but that doesn't make one better than the other, it's simply your personal preference. What scanner/film/development/camera etc. do you use to base your statements on 35mm film on? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital camera pixels. It's not wrong. If you are talking image fidelity, then it depends on what aspect of image fidelity is more important to you. CLEARLY the scanned pixel has higher color fidelity...and it may in fact have higher image detail fidelity as well... Even if the digicam image is sharper, sharpness may not mean higher image fidelity. so the interpolated pixels cheap shot is just that, a cheap shot. It's not a cheap shot, it's a fact, like it or not. If you consider the minimum dpi for acceptable print to be a measure of (the inverse of) an imaging technology's pixel quality, that raises the question of what is the parameter that limits that minimum dpi. It may be that it's chrominance resolution that limits dSLR images and luminance resolution that limits scanned image. You may very well be correct, I'd have to think about it. Again, I'm not the one comparing pixel-for-pixel; Me either...but someone brought it up, and I believe it's a useless comparison, as pixels have no relative dimension between images. and arguing that you have to downsample scanned images to get comparable pixels as measured by equivalent print quality. I agree. My best estimate is that 4000 dpi scans of Fuji 100F films downsampled to 2400 dpi turn into close to 10D quality. But...that's what I say is simply wrong, as a general statement. You MAY have an example that shows that as true, but that doesn't make it hold true for every example, variables being development, scanner and scanner operator. There are lots of people who come up with 9MP or so as the digital equivalent of 35. And there's a lot who come up with 16M, and 24M and 96M etc. It just isn't as simple as assigning a number. It's like saying, as a general statement, a Range Rover is better than a Porsche...in some aspects, yes, in some no, and it very much so depends on what aspect of an aspect is important to you. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
I'm very sure! The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive compatibility, it's that old :-) It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts altogether. I know it's pushing the accepted wisdom, but people have mistaken the pictures for commercial posters so it's not just my opinion. And I meant 13x19, A3+ or B+ size - that was a typo. In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LAURIE SOLOMON) wrote: I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the Canon Pro 70. Are you sure it is 1.68 megapixels? That is so low that I doubt they are even selling digital cameras with that few megapixel capacity. As for what is or is not very acceptible depends subjectively on one's tastes and standards; besides 13x9 is a somewhat smaller image than a 13x19, although 13x9 may be pushing the envelope for a 1-2 megapixel camera since the typical wisdom is that you need at least 3 megapixels to produce a satisfactory 8x10. I just have to weigh in on this. Even the current crop of 6M+ megapixel cameras barely produce acceptable 13 x 19 prints from unrezzed data. So a 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is not pushing the envelope, it's simply not believable. There simply is not enough data there, by a factor of about 4 to produce an acceptable 13 x 19 print. That is, if we're talking inches. If you mean some other unit of measure, that's a different story. A 1.68 M pixel camera will have a file that is ~ 1.6k x 1k. And, 1.6k over 19 inches is only 84 PPI to the printer, and that will give you very pixelated printouts. Now, if you rez up the images to get more PPI to the printer, you can eliminate the pixelated look...but the fidelity of the image data is questionable. You can't create detail where detail didn't exist in the original file in the first place. Though the image may be sharp, and may look good standing alone, so does a comic strip... It all depends on what you are looking for. If you want a detailed large image, a 1.68M pixel image simply will not do. If you want simply a graphical representation of the major outlines of the image, it will do. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Bob, Of course, you can make up anything in an image that you want...you can put a soldier pointing a gun at a man with a child, but what's important is that anything you simply make up isn't original. I don't know of any programs that create new detail (automatically that is) where none existed before...do you? Does GF do that? Basically, this is the same argument as to how much you can PhotoShop an image before it isn't really representative of the original recording. Some argue that BW isn't really representative of an original, and is actually an abstract. I do in fact like to keep the fidelity of the image as high as possible, that, to me, is what photography is about...as is audio. Obviously, some people like to PS their images...some more than others...to each his own...but I do believe that photography (at least labeled as photography) is supposed to be representative of reality (IOW, maintain the highest fidelity), and though I completely accept people manipulating their images, and calling it art, I think it should be labeled as such...and adding detail to an image that simply didn't exist in the original representation of the image is a manipulation of the recording of the image. I'm not against it, just in people calling it photography ;-) Regards, Austin Surely you can; it just isn't 'original' detail. But to anyone who hadn't seen the original detail, it might look just as good. After all, people pay millions for artists' representations of original detail, so why shouldn't a digicam representation of original detail make a good picture. It might not be an 'accurate' record, but then neither is the painting, and I doubt if 'accurate record' pictures are what turn most people on. They clearly are what turns you on, but you are unusual I suggest!! Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't create detail where detail didn't exist in the original file in the first place. -- -- 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: Ink-jet Print File Resolution; was: Pixels and Prints
Hi Preston, Bob Frost (I believe it was) advocated sending 360ppi or 720ppi files to a 720dpi desktop inkjet printer. It certainly makes intuitive sense that on a 720dpi printer, a 720ppi file would work best. Why you want to send the Epson, specifically, desktop printers 720 is because they interpolate/decimate the image you send it TO 720PPI (not DPI) prior to dithering, using a rather rudimentary interpolation, and perhaps horrible decimation, method. If you sent it the image, using a better scaling (interpolation or decimation) method, theoretically, you could get a better resultant image printed. It does make sense, as you say, that the 720 is an even multiple of the printer DPI resolutions of 360/720/1440/2880...and certainly that is one of the reasons they rescale the image to 720...but that doesn't mean it'll print at 720, it will print at any of it's native resolutions using the 720 prior to dithering. Are there some other sources (besides Members Magic Eyes) that cite this? This was stated by Epson that they resample to 720 for the desktops and 360 for the large format printers. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Austin, And just where would you put Ansel Adam's highly manipulated images in this scheme of things? Er, as highly manipulated images ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Bob, I think you've missed my point. All images, whatever their ppi (correct this time, Austin) I'm flattered, Bob ;-) , printed on Epson inkjets are upsampled by the Epson driver, unless they are already at the ppi which the driver requires (360ppi for wideformat printers and 720ppi for desktop printers) whether you like it or not. So yes, upsampling may always result in some loss, but there is no way of preventing it other than sending your image at 360 or 720 depending on your printer. Since I understand that the printer driver uses Nearest Neighbour resampling - the poorest upsampling method according to many - it might be preferable to do the upsampling yourself with a better algorithm such as Vector, Lanczos, Bicubic, etc and avoid having the printer driver do it with NN. An excellent point, one I'd like to hear more results from. I have heard, but have not tried, of people doing this. The claims I heard were that the image was improved...but of course, that's subjective, and will be quite image dependant. People who think they are avoiding upsampling by sending their image to the printer as it comes are deluding themselves; the printer driver will upsample it to 360 or 720ppi, come what may. One caveat...if someone is using a non-standard driver, like the Piezo BW driver. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, Then there's the reality check of actually looking at film scans and actually looking at some digital camera images and seeing how they compare. If one actually did that, one would see that, on a pixel-for-pixel basis (that is, comparing the same number of pixels), film scans are incredibly poor, being soft and noisy. As I mentioned before, downsampling 4000 dpi scans of Fuji 100F slides to 60% results in images that are beginning to be similar quality to digital camera originals. That depends on a LOT of things. The film, the development and the scanner. I have seen extreme differences between high end film, excellent exposure/development and using a very good scanner...much less a high end scanner...vs...most decent films scanned on a con/prosumer based scanner. I have compared scans from my scanner (Leaf45, which scans 35mm at 5080) and different digital cameras (Leaf Lumina, which is a TRUE RGB digital camera in that it gives %100 of the color information per pixel...as well as D30, D60, Hasselblad digital backs etc. The ONLY digital cameras that come close to my best film scans are the 7k x 7k Hasselblad scanning back (which actually beats most film, but is useless in the real world only in the studio) and the Lumina comes close, but not quite (which is a 2k x 3k scanning camera). The others, though good, simply don't compare to a high end film scan. Then there is the issue of the Bayer pattern fidelity...even though the digicam images look sharper, sharpness is not the only criteria for an image. In fact, it is typically a false indicator IMO. Though, some people believe it looks good, in fact, it really has nothing to do with image fidelity. A two pixel camera will give you a sharp image... I don't think the generalizations I've seen here are valid as generalizations. Certainly, what you see is what you see, but that doesn't mean it holds true for all situations. Because one uses a Holga, doesn't mean all medium format images are no better than the images from an SX-70 ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi David, I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Take a 900 x 900 pixel crop from your 5080 dpi scan and print it at 3x3 inches. Take a 900x900 crop from a 10D image and print it at 3x3 inches. Which looks better? That depends, and I am curious why you think that is of any value? If a 300 x 300 crop from a 10D represents 16x more area, why not compare actual area for area? You're making the arbitrary choice of sensor sizes/metrics here. The pixel area from one is not necessarily of equal value to the pixel area from another, and what the equality is, depends on how many pixels there are for the respective image. I could downsample my scanner to give me the exact same image area information as the 10D, and that information would contain complete color values, not interpolated pixels. So the argument that scanned pixels are, on an individual basis, in any way better than 10D pixels, strikes me as seriously problematic. But...the 10D doesn't really have pixels...it has sensors, and those sensors are in a Bayer pattern. The scanner has full color pixels, and the output of the scanner can be made to give you pixels that represent the same image information. Now, if you want to compare that (and why not, it's pixels for pixels, which is your metric, and IMO, a far better metric than the processed output of a digicam vs the raw output of a film scanner), then I guarantee you my 5080 DPI scanner will give me a FAR better looking image than the 10D will. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Eugene, 240 dpi is all that is needed. Needed? I have images that show more detail (and look better) using up to 480PPI to the printer... Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: connecting scanner to computer
Hi Austin, The SCSI cable on my flatbed scanner is 6' long, and it's never caused me a problem. I don't believe I've ever seen anything longer, however. Single ended SCSI, as most here will be using, is spec'd for up to 3 meters. Typically, in my experience, the main issue people have with SCSI is improper termination. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Bob, 240 dpi is not all that is needed..., because the Epson driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. Just a minor clarification...both of you really mean PPI, as in pixels per inch, which is what you send to the printer...you don't send dots to the printer, the printer, though, in our case, prints dots. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Roger, Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner pixels are second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems empirically like a good approximation, but I don't have research to prove this. So what if it's second generation? Unless you can analyze the fidelity of it to make claims from, that's simply an argument that has no teeth. Fact is, digicam pixels have some %66 of the red, %66 of the blue and %50 of the green data interpolated. Scanned film data does not. It has all three color values as original information. So, second generation or not, the fidelity (which is what is important) of the data from scanned film far outweighs digicam data of the same resolution. How good the scanned data is, depends a lot on how good the original film image is, as well as how good the scanner/operator is. Not all scanners scan 4000 PPI the same. Even if you recorded Ozzie live with your 8 track tape recorder, my nth generation CD will have a far higher fidelity. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Karl, Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Where on earth do you get that idea? Basicall, your claim is simply not even close. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
Hi Tom, Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that the scanner transfers data to the computer. Unless you have a really old scanner that uses a parallel or serial port, I'd doubt that the issue is data transfer from the scanner to the computer. Typically, it is the exposure time that is far longer than the data transfer time. A bulb that is weak, or simply bad exposure, can really reek havoc on exposure time. If you do the simple calculations for, say, a 35mm negative, 16 bits/color at 4kSPI, that gives you 4000 x 6000 x 2 bytes/color x 3 colors bytes to transfer = 144,000,000 bytes. Data is transferred while the scanner is scanning...and any processing is done line by line, as it is sent to the computer. So, Asynchronous SCSI I goes at, let's say, 1.5M bytes/second...so that would take 96 seconds...or one and a half minutes. Say you have 25ms per line scan time, and a 5ns per line overhead, or 30ms per line. There are 6000 lines, so just the scan takes 3 minutes. I'd suggest checking your exposure time if you are getting long scans. There also could be something wrong with your cable/termination/controller. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie, Don't worry about it. You will know for the future. And all the time I've been on this list, I was unaware of that as well, but in all honesty, I didn't really give it much thought... I received both this post, Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/03 at 10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my response only a few minuts later. Come on now. You mean you read all the posts before responding, not just read the first one, respond, read the second one, respond...etc.? Pffft...how droll ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi Laurie, Given the new information, I would say that Austin needs to update his familiarity with VueScan as well since much of the discussion appears to involve Vuescan since that is what many of his fellow debaters are using. You are correct that I (and apparently you as well ;-) weren't up on all the capabilities of VueScan...but...the discussion really had nothing to do with VueScan, it was specifically about making tonal moves in 8 bit vs 16 bit files. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, Most images will do with 8 bit manipulation... Simply show me one that doesn't. but some with extreme curves or white and/or black point applied have difficulties. White and/or black points applied? ALL 8 bit images have the setpoints applied, unless you have some weird/old scanner that only provides 8 bit data! If you don't believe me, I am sorry. Not only do I not believe you, I know what you're saying is wrong. Again, if someone here really wanted to shut me up about this, then provide an image...no one has...or can. I you never had seen this 8 bit manipulation problem, I assume you always have simple good snapshots to start with... Yes, simple snapshots with my Hasselblads...the ultimate PS...or simply that the problem doesn't exist ;-) If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you look at getting the image right on film, instead of relying on your image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Austin, From what I remember Ed Hamrick saying, he uses Kodak calibration data on film types. Bob Frost. Hi Bob, From my experience, I've found that to be rather inaccurate...as I've said, development and exposure play a big part on tonality. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Henk, Austin Franklin writes: I have little experience with Viewscan, No experience at all I think. Austin doesn't know how to spell the name right... My spelling of it is in fact correct. If you want to fuss about capitalization of the S, fine, but if you look through my posts, you will see I typically capitalized the S. Oh, and what about the other dozen or so people who didn't capitalize the S and made posts here, are you going to call them on it as well? Obviously, you, or any of your cohorts, are able to win the argument here by showing factual images that support your claims... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Henk, I have little experience with Viewscan, No experience at all I think. Austin doesn't know how to spell the name right... I sit corrected, this product that we are discussing is spelled VUEScan! Which, of course, has no bearing on much of anything...and my misspelling is all you seem to be able to hang your hat on. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you look at getting the image right on film, instead of relying on your image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home from a travel I can not do a second time. The films I bring home is all the material I have. When light conditions at the moment of taking the photo were bad, but the photo is to important to miss, the only way to use the photo is by extreme manipulation. Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical. So, in the end you admit... I'd suggest re-reading what I wrote...this time carefully ;-) I said I understood that situations exist where the image simply isn't taken right in the first place. That is an entirely separate issue from the *need* to use high bit data for tonal curve manipulation, whether the original image is right or not. So, in the end, you, nor any one else, are able to provide an image that substantiates these claims. Funny how that is. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Frank, But they don't need being picked on. You do. You're supposed to be an adult. Why not behave like one, especially in public? This is a technical forum, and I believe that most everyone here would appreciate it if you kept your personal issues out of this forum. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie, At the risk of raising Austin's ire, Au contraire! You hit the nail on the head ;-) I think that he is being more of a purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat artwork and prints. His position is basically that the scanner when used properly should produce an accurate and proper reproduction of the subject matter that it is capturing and that the use of post scanning image editing programs (either scanner programs or applications like Photoshop) should not be necessary and are only to be used as (a) a last resort, (b) to do creative manipulations and artsy derivatives generated off the original, or (c) to do restorations. Exactly! While I do see some technical disagreements in the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans (raw lineal or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of enhancement and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done using high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large tonal moves post scanning. As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems are either produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is essentially an empirical and practical question (even if theoretically and analytically a case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. And, interestingly enough, no one can come up with any images that demonstrate this. That they have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not wanting to partake in the discussion... Hey, did I say that? ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. How do you know the original scanner data is any good? A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. How do you know? I have mentioned many times the following link which proves my statement when this discussion about 8 bit/16 bit is going on again and again: http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/7627.html?cprose=I20 That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation problem with 8 bit color data. Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG problem, and no one can! This must include a raw scan, the same scan converted to 8 bit, manipulated, that shows visibly noticeable tonal degradation. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi Rob, Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? That is probably how every filmscanner that you or I would use, works... The issue is the software (and possibly hardware), and how it allows you to control this...but if you can get 8 bit data, it's got to have it's setpoints set and tonal curves applied. Some scanners do the setpoints automatically in the scanner. Some use profiles to apply the tonal curves... I presume what you mean by tonal curves are curves applied to the data to correct for the behaviour of the scanner's own hardware and the behaviour of the film (ie. a film profile). That sounds about right, but tonal curves also correct for exposure and any other tonal changes you want to make to the image. Maybe I'm not understanding what set points are. I thought you meant black and white points but now I'm not sure. Yes, setpoints are the black and white extents of the image. The black setpoint and the white setpoint make up the two setpoints. Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? I'm not assuming any specific interface... Another question then - do you use Vuescan? No. Because my understanding of the original rationale behind vuescan (which has shifted a little over time) was to get the most possible useful information out of the scan, and leave the a lot of the contrast and tonal correction to editing later. Well, I've been around since long before Viewscan...and IMO, Viewscan was simply a scanner program that was better (in some instances) a LOT better than any of the programs that came with the low end scanners of the time...and allowed people to get better scans from low end scanners. Maybe Ed has changed his rationale completely over the years, but I don't recall him ever recommending that you should do all the image tonal manipulation in Vuescan and virtually none of it in an editor afterward. I don't konw what Ed recommends or not, aside from buying his program...nor am I really too concerned it... I also don't know how good the setpoint and tonal tools are in Viewscan, but as I've said, you should either get the setpoints and tonal curves right (requiring none to little modification later) in the scanner software, or use raw scan data and do the setpoints and tonal manipulation in your image editing program of choice. OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by raw data. Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw data. Raw data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal curves applied. What do you think raw data means? I would have taken raw data to mean exactly what it says - the bytes produced by the scanner with no manipulation whatsoever, meaning you'd have to remove the neg mask, invert and do tonal correction in an editor. Correct. That's not different than what I said, except my statement is descriptive of what the raw data is, yours is what the raw data requires...except you're missing setting setpoints, which really has to be done before tonal correction. Perhaps my view of raw is skewed by being a programmer or using Vuescan; whose raw files are exactly as I described above. Raw data is exactly as I have described it. You can give it any additional attributes you want... More importantly, the raw data is useless to me if I want to take advantage of the scanner's IR dust removal feature. I have no need for any features like that, but my understanding is what yours is as well, you can't use those types of features with raw data...unless the scanner also passes the IR data to the scanner application along with the raw data. The IR data is simply a fourth channel, and could easily be passed on if designed to do so. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Frank, By low end scanners, do you mean something like the Polaroid SS4000? Because VueScan produces much better scans than Polacolor Insight. Viewscan, nor Insight, nor any scanner software produces the scans, the scanner and the scanner operator does. Perhaps it's true that for someone who wants the software to simply hand then a scan, Viewscan does a better job at automating the process. I find setting setpoints and adjusting tonal curves quite easy. Or, perhaps for scanners that aren't all that good, all the extra processing options in Viewscan can be very beneficial. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, Arguing for 8bits is just plain silly. Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows ignorance. Do you have an image that you can show me that is lacking because it had tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your belief, but actual images... Austin BTW, that wasn't meant to be as gruff sounding as it probably came across. What I was simply trying to say, was a statement, such as you and whom you were quoting made, can only be based on a lack of experience and/or understanding, which in a word, is ignorance. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, Arguing for 8bits is just plain silly. Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows ignorance. Do you have an image that you can show me that is lacking because it had tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your belief, but actual images... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Thanks for that info Bob. Does the Nikon 4000 suffer from any focus issues, at least in your experience (assuming you have one)? BTW, do you think the IR dust removal works well? It seems to me that it's (dust problem) exacerbated on scanners that use point light sources, like LEDs... I've literally got no experience what so ever with any of this extra processing that the newer scanners have...as my scanner doesn't have any of these issues that this seem to mitigate... Regards, Austin It is with the Nikon 4000. Vuescan simply saves it as an extra channel if you ask it to. You can then look at it and see what it has marked for removal. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] The IR data is simply a fourth channel, and could easily be passed on if designed to do so. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Frank, Perhaps it's true that for someone who wants the software to simply hand then a scan, Viewscan does a better job at automating the process. And I presume you think this is me? How condescending. Frank, did I say that was you? No, I didn't. Don't read things into what I say that I simply didn't say. I was stating what I thought were the advantages Viewscan offered, and that is one of them. If it HAPPENS to fit you, then that's fine, and certainly NOT condescending. The only thing I set most of the time in VueScan is the brightness level and accept the rest of the defaults, doing minor touch-up in Photoshop. But...this means you DO in fact want an automated process...doesn't it? And, my comment that Viewscan does a better job at automating the process DOES apply to you... I have much less to do in VueScan than I do in Insight. I don't even use the latter anymore, it is so poor by comparison. All you should need to get perfect scans (NOT perfect images, as there may be things you may want to do beyond simply scanning) is to be able to set the setpoints and adjust the tonal curves. That's all you need to do to get perfect scans. Do you even have any experience with VueScan, or are you, as usual, just talking through an orifice of your body that does not bear mentioning? I have little experience with Viewscan, as I have no need for it. My scanner software gives me perfect scans, because I know how to use it. Setpoint too and tonal curve tool. Anything beyond that is purely fluff, at least for my scanner. Also, re your tedious insistance on proof for every claim that people are making regarding the usefulness they have found for 8 bit color scans, you know, that's like asking for yet another proof of Einstein's theory of relativity before you'll accept it: totally passé. Call it what you want, Frank...as your head is in the...er...sand... It's your, and anyone else's, lack of providing any evidence that makes your position rather annoying. You are clearly espousing something that you simply have no experience with...or you, or someone, anyone, else would provide the evidence. I find setting setpoints and adjusting tonal curves quite easy. How does this distinguish you from most experienced scanner people on this list? Because one is experienced certainly doesn't mean one knows what one's doing ;-) Or, perhaps for scanners that aren't all that good, all the extra processing options in Viewscan can be very beneficial. I hardly ever use anything else but brightness. Then why aren't you able to use the scanner interface that comes with the SS4000? Does it not come with a setpoint tool and a tonal curve tool? Do you simply not understand setpoints and tonal curves enough to use them? BTW, do you actually know what brightness does to the actual data? So maybe the SS4000 is exempt from your dismissal of scanners that aren't all that good. The SS4k is a great scanner, and I've never said anything different, but it IS a low-mid end scanner. It's one of the better of the low-mid end scanners, that's for sure. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi David, The last I checked, Vuescan doesn't have a curves tool, although it's high on the author's list of things to add. What it does have support for is color calibration. Some of the scanner software has film profiling, and I've done quite a bit of work with it, unfortunately, that only sort of works. There are variables in film development, and exposure that will render profiles only somewhat useful. They get you in ballpark, but you still typically have some work to do. How does the color calibration in VS work? To close the calibration loop, you really need to take a picture of a known target and do so for each film/development/camera and/or lense (as different lenses render colors differently) etc., and even then there may be other variables that makes it not work as well as you might hope...like exposure/development etc. The only way to close the loop somewhat is to take a picture of a color target on each roll...which I did routinely when doing commercial work. I've color calibrated one of my flatbeds using a color target (and the scanner software that came with it) and it worked OK. I'm sure for some people, they may be perfectly happy with that type of open loop calibration, and given Viewscan's audience, that, no matter how Ed did it, unless he really did it wrong... is probably a great feature, and well worth the price of admission for people who want more automated scanning. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Re:24bit vs more
Hi Rob, You should either get raw data from the scanner, or do the setpoints/tonal curves correctly in the scanner software. Keep in mind, every time you re-do setpoints/tonal curves, you are degrading the data. It's just a fact of how setpoints/tonal curves work. What the significance of that degradation is, will vary greatly, so it may not be *that* bad...but why do things twice when you can do them right the first time? Are you saying this applies when using Vuescan - especially with negs? That is probably how every filmscanner that you or I would use, works... The issue is the software (and possibly hardware), and how it allows you to control this...but if you can get 8 bit data, it's got to have it's setpoints set and tonal curves applied. Some scanners do the setpoints automatically in the scanner. Some use profiles to apply the tonal curves... Or are you assuming the sort of interface that Nikonscan provides? I'm not assuming any specific interface... Getting the *right* 24 bits can sometimes better be done with an image editing program than the scanner's interface. I understand that some scanner software is lacking, and that is where you simply should get raw data from the scanner, and learn how to do a better job of setpoints and tonal curves in PS. OK, then I think we agree? Other than what you mean by raw data. Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw data. Raw data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal curves applied. What do you think raw data means? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Re:24bit vs more
Hi Robert, save scanner corrected TIF (16 bit) ...scanner corrected...16 bit... Does your scanner allow setpoints and correction to high bit data? What scanner is it? This is not a property of the software, but of the scanner hardware/firmware. Can I assume that the RAW scan is just that, it will always be the same w.r.t a particular scanner and this negative, forgiving minor variations, but will vary on the scanning software. It shouldn't vary with the scanning software. Each different scanner may handle raw data differently, and of course, will give you different data based on the exposure time, the A/D, characteristics of the CCD, so it won't really be exactly the same. Some may be quite close, but some may be quite different. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Robert, You are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working with grayscale there is! Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of bits per pixel is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead of simply 8. 24 bits is 2**24 or 16,777,216. 8 bits is only 256. Hum, we have a few orders of magnitude in available tones to work with here... And the colour separations on RGB (the 256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to work on) - yet not on BW. P.T. who? This statement is nonsensical, as it clearly shows you have misconception of the concepts involved here. Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on enlightenment. I would hardly call your position enlightened. You've got clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn something, instead of try to rationalize your position, because you can learn something here if you want to. Instead of fussing, you ought to post a raw image, and then an image manipulated using only 8 bits and one using 16 bits, that shows this problem you are citing. If you can't then what you claim is simply myth. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Oh Robert, Austin Franklin wrote: I believe you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a color file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually capable (because you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color file. It has nothing to do with the tools [of] tomorrow. Ahem, I'll clarify, as youve missed the point. Oh no, I got what you are trying to claim, and I am telling you that what you are claiming has no merit. I understand you believe it does, but from what I can tell, your belief is based on a lack of understanding. I AM NOT looking at 16 bit files and saying, , thats lovely, far nicer than that 8 bit one - I am saying that if I scan it at 16 bit and store it thus, then I will be able to go back and get more out of it than if I scan it at 8 bit. But that's a misunderstanding. A 14 bit scanner does NOT scan at 8 bits if you ask for 8 bit data. It ALWAYS scans at 14 bits, period. It then applies the setpoints and tonal curves on the 14 bit data and THEN converts to 8 bits. Most scanners either return setpointed/tonal curved 8 bit data, or raw 16 bit data (which can really be either 10/12/14 bits actually used). So, anyway, my point being that what you are getting from the scanner when you get 8 bit data IS high bit data that has had the setpoints and tonal curves already applied. This 8 bit data should NOT require any major tonal curve corrections in PS, if it does, you haven't done a good job at scanning. The other method is to scan raw and simply do the setpoints and tonal curves in PS. Again, once you've gotten these done using high bit data, you should not need to do any major tonal manipulations, and therefore saving only the 8 bit file is, with little exception, going to give you as high a fidelity as you can get. I need convincing completely in this case. That's not my job, nor will I make it my job, but the issue is, you don't want to listen to people who have many years of experience in this field/subject. You think you are right, I think Im right and were not talking of the same things. Actually, I know I am right (having been in this field for over 25 years), and would bet you on it, and I know you have some misunderstandings as to how things work...and as I suggested in another post, you might try to simply learn something here. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of bits per pixel is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead of simply 8. As I said in a post to Robert, if you have sufficient noise (from either the CCD or film grain) to dither the finer gradations up into the top eight bits, then the extra bits buy you nothing. That's equally true of BW and color. Hi Paul, I agree with your statement, BUT...I want to emphasize that you really can't do much tonal manipulation on an 8 bit BW image without posterization, so I would have to qualify your statement to exclude tonal manipulations, except for a very few images. I agree that 8 bits, with all codes used, will give you an awesome BW output with the right printing system, and there is little, if any, to be gained by higher bit output...but it seems that depends on how you are outputting. The Piezo quad-tone driver purportedly adds intermediate tones to smooth the transitions. That's my only BW printing system, so I can't say if it actually does that or not, and you can't turn it on/off. I do know that the Piezo driver is FAR better than the Epson driver though (for the 3000), but the Epson driver doesn't use quad tones. But, (yes, another but ;-), some people who use curves for quad-tone inks say they get equal to, or near, Piezo output, and some people who have the high bit Piezo, I believe it was called PiezoPro, say that the extra bits are noticeable...and that I'm skeptical of, as I haven't seen the same image printed using the Piezo and then Piezo Pro to see if the tonality is any better. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
I would hardly call your position enlightened. You've got clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn something, instead of try to rationalize your position, because you can learn something here if you want to. ROFLMAO! Mr. Pontification! Hi Frank, Yeah, I know...but I just couldn't let his enlightened comment slide by without paying it due discourse ;-) I could have discoursed in not near as nice a way. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 24bit vs more
Hi Rob, I dispute the claim that if you have to do a significant amount of adjustment after scanning that you haven't done it right. It depends on the circumstances. Hum. Obviously, I disagree, and note, it's not just after scanning but after scanning and letting the scanner do setpoints and tonal curves. If you get raw data, well, obviously, you have to do all your adjusting after the scan! You should either get raw data from the scanner, or do the setpoints/tonal curves correctly in the scanner software. Keep in mind, every time you re-do setpoints/tonal curves, you are degrading the data. It's just a fact of how setpoints/tonal curves work. What the significance of that degradation is, will vary greatly, so it may not be *that* bad...but why do things twice when you can do them right the first time? Getting the *right* 24 bits can sometimes better be done with an image editing program than the scanner's interface. I understand that some scanner software is lacking, and that is where you simply should get raw data from the scanner, and learn how to do a better job of setpoints and tonal curves in PS. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Bob, I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400! Regards, Austin Austin, I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and reduce the size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exactly, but to claim that you need to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Preston, Great post, thanks...but again, I MUST stress, that Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT BW, and that distinction is VERY important. Regards, Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Of interest in this discussion: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-b it-16-bit.htm and http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16- bit-2002.htm Money quote from Dan Margulis: The bottom line of all my tests was, with one important caveat that I'll get to in a moment, there is no 16-bit advantage. I blasted these files with a series of corrections far beyond anything real-world; I worked at gammas ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 and in all four of the standard RGBs, I worked with negs, positives, LAB, CMYK, RGB, Hue/Saturation, what have you. While the results weren't identical there were scarcely any cases where there would be detectable differences and in those one would be as likely to prefer the 8-bit version as the 16. So, I have no reservation in saying that there's no particular point in retaining files in 16-bit, although it doesn't hurt either. I'll show all these results later, but the surprise was in the files that Ric [Cohn] sent, which appeared to show just the sort of damage that 8-bit editing is supposed to cause, in an image with a dark rich blue gradient, a worst-case scenario in conjunction with the very dark original scan, which in itself was an attempt to give an advantage to 16-bit editing. Ric provided both original 8-bit and 16-bit versions of these files. Granted that the necessary corrections were very severe, they still showed that what he said was true: the 8-bit version banded rather badly and the 16-bit did not. I tried several different ways of trying to get around the disadvantage and could not do so without excessive effort. Ric's 8-bit original, however, was generated from the 16-bit scan not by Photoshop but rather within his own scanner software. Therefore, I tried further tests where I applied the same extreme corrections to the image, but this time not to Ric's 8-bit image but rather a direct Photoshop conversion of Ric's 16- bit image to 8-bit. Shockingly, this completely eliminated the problem. There was no reason to prefer the version corrected entirely in 16-bit. When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner 8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the 8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Still in Group 3.) -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
...It doesn't apply to computer-generated images with gradients, tints, etc., either. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you scan those with a film scanner? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Hi Ramesh, A two pixel camera will give you a perfectly sharp image. Sharpness is no indication of image fidelity (ability to reproduce accurately). It also depends on your scanner and your film and a whole lot of other things... Regards, Austin Hi, Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and observe at 100%. Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. What is the reason for this? Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Berry, What I want to know is: which one will make a better 11x14 or 12x16 print? That depends on what characteristics of an image YOU like. No one else can tell you what YOU might think is better (except your wife ;-). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Robert, Austin Franklin wrote: It really depends on if you are talking color or BW. For BW, there is no question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. Have to agree on the BW front - 16 bit is essential - after scanning in a roll of old FP from some years ago and I forgot to set to 16 bit - I got a shock when doing curves - boom - highlights would just explode :) As for 16 bit, I cant agree. If you take a picture of a heavily red scene... I agree, and that's why I said for *most* applications... 8 bits is only 256 possible reds/greens/blues. of each individual color, true, and it's also 16M colors. Also, you're not likely to get only one color out of three. For most images, there will be no visible degradation in the image using only 8 bits/color. If you haven't tried an experiment, and are only speaking of theory, you really need to try an experiment for your self. Many people have done this experiment, and that's why they say that 8 bits/color works perfectly for most images. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Robert, Yes - 8 bit does work fine for most images, but if you really want to throw an image into some editing, then relying on 8 bits is foolhardy if you can get more to work with. BUT...you really don't GET 16 bits. You get 10, 12 or 13, and even if you *think* you get 14, you really don't. It also depends on if you are scanning slides, which will use more bits, or negatives, which will end up occupying less bits. It's just how scanners work. Scanners read relative density, and that's it. Remember - filmscanners work with an analogue medium that contains far more information than 16/8 bits can capture Than 8 bits yes, but it's no where near more than 16 bits. You are lucky to get 10 if even 11 bits out of negative film. 10 bits is a density range of 3.0, 11 bits is a density range of 3.3 and 12 bits is a density range of 3.6. Have you ever measured the density range of color negative film? Provia has a stated dMax (in the Kodak data sheet) of 3.0, and a dMin of .2, which gives a density range of 2.8. A density range of 2.8 requires only 10 bits. And, keep in mind that because you have a density range of N, does not mean that you actually have a FILM color resolution that will allow discernability of all those bits! This is particularly true of slide film. - now why not only use 4 bits? or 6/7? 8 Bits is no magic number... Well, for grayscale, it's more than they human eye can discern (which is around 100+), so that's why not 4 or 6. Though, 7 would do fine for printing an image. But, because we can't discern tones, doesn't mean that they aren't useful...because you want the tonal transitions (if they are that way in the original scene that is) to appear smooth, and you can only do that by using indiscernible tones...if they were discernable, you'd see them ;-) - just as the 16 Million colours is a myth - in the sense that no digital image contains all 256*256*256 possibilities. I don't see the myth you believe...no one ever said that ALL possibilities are in any image. You're missing the point. What is important is what they eye can discern, and that you can represent all the variants that an eye can discern for any image (within the limits of the color space chosen that is). It's the gradient that is important, not the overall number of colors. There are also two different issues. One is tonal curves, which is a different issue than printability/viewability. The second is based solely on our ability to discern colors, and that is very well scientifically documented what the limits of human vision are. The first is based on how much of a tonal movement can you do and it not be discernable in the output, and that is entirely image, and amount of tonal movement, dependant. Heyy - it might contain 3400*120*44 ... Its well documented in the 3D community that having 24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, and more. That's an entirely different issue. I think that scanning to capture all the nuances and working from there is the sensible way. I understand you (and some others) believe that, but that doesn't mean it's true, as a general rule, or that there is any benefit from it, as a general rule. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Andreas, Austin Franklin wrote: Its well documented in the 3D community that having 24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, and more. That's an entirely different issue. I don't think so. This is exactly the same problem. I disagree, but that really doesn't matter to this discussion. When editing an image colorwise, then depending on the algoriths used, an 8bit value per channel can easily lead to banding on some operations. It depends on what the source of the banding is. Many sources can cause banding, but we are specifically talking about posterization here that is caused by tonal manipulation of the data, where the tonal transitions are not smooth, and this is caused by missing intermediate values. Banding *CAN* be something completely different than this, and may not have a thing to do with this specific issue. It will show up pretty clear in histograms, but might not be visible to the viewer, depending on where it happens and the visual sensibility of the viewer (and the monitor or whatever the outout device is). What's important, is whether it's visible or not. If there is more room to work in, this banding does not happen or is less visible. That is the advantage of working with 16bits. Just plain old math. If you work in a small integer space some operations will produce losses. Some operations *CAN* produce losses, and it depends on the visual significance of those losses. For 8 bit color images, as I've stated, those losses are not visible for MOST images. That's just plain fact. If you *WANT* to use 16 bits (which, as I've said, isn't really 16 bits anyway...the N bits is expanded to occupy a 16 bit space, but fact is, there are LOTS of holes in the 16 bit data. On the histogram, you ONLY see the upper 8 bits, so the holes aren't apparent). The bigger the space the less loss you have. True, but again, there may be NO visual impact caused by the loss, as has been readily and frequently proven by many an experiment. If the effects of working in the wider space affect your images visibly is something that only can be judged by looking at them and comparing the results of working in both ranges. For some it does so drastically for others not. Exactly, but to claim that you need to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. What would be nice is if someone would post two snips of the same image, showing this problem. If it was such an issue, you'd think there would be tons of web pages with this on it...but alas, I haven't seen any, and you'd believe people would be ready to share their images...but I haven't seen that either... I do find that interesting. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Art, ...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever range is available, anyway. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
It really depends on if you are talking color or BW. For BW, there is no question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Yup, I'm in category 1 too. If you're going to work on the image, 16-bit makes a huge difference--many operations, especially big curve or gamma adjustments, throw away bits. The goal is to still have 8 bits of information left when you're done. Starting at 8 bits that's pretty tough. But if you're not going to work the image, if you're going to make all your adjustments in the scanning program, then yes, 8 bits is plenty. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 16 vs 8bit scans
Ed, What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments in 16 vs 8bit, As a note, when you do tonal curves using your scanner driver, the curves are done to high bit data, even though you save it as 8 bit data. That is why I suggest that tonal curves be done in the driver (if the tools available there are decent enough), and saved as 8 bit. Now, if you are scanning color, even doing tonal adjustments to 8 bit data can be fine, provided the adjustments aren't too drastic. For BW, do not do tonal adjustments to 8 bit data. Also, would a native 8bit scan using NikonScan be as good as if it had been converted to 8bit in PS7? Technically, there is no such thing as a native 8 bit scan, unless the scanner A/D was only an 8 bit A/D. You said your scanner used a 14 bit A/D, so I'd say it's a toss-up. Do one of each with the same scan, and see which one you like better. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 16 vs 8bit scans
I'm new to scanning, using a Nikon 4000ED on PC. I've been scanning in 14bit mode, doing some cleanup and adjustments, and resaving as 16bit TIFF masters. What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments in 16 vs 8bit, and does it matter for final quality either way? Also, would a native 8bit scan using NikonScan be as good as if it had been converted to 8bit in PS7? Experience shows that eight bits is fine... Hi Paul, Please be careful when you claim that. For color, and with your caveats, that is correct...but for BW, that is not. Tonal manipulations should not be done to 8 bit data. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Hi David, I haven't tried the Portra films yet, but Reala's clearly worse than Provia for grain noise That is going to be scanner dependant. On my scanner, that does not appear to be an issue, but yes, I have heard/seen grain noise from other people. It appears that most 2700SPI scanners accentuate grain in those films. Thanks for the recommendation. You're welcome. I have two rolls of Konica Impressa 50 sitting here: are they worth shooting??? I have no idea! I'm scanning at full native resolution. If I crop so that the resultant file prints at 300 dpi, I don't like what I see. If I crop so that the resultant file prints at 450 dpi, I do like what I see. What do you mean by crop? Don't let the image get resampled! Send what ever PPI to the printer the changing of the dimensions gives you... What I'm doing is changing the magnification by cropping and then printing to A4 to determine how large a print I could make when I get around to acquiring a 2200 or give the files to a lab. OK, interesting technique. Off the top of my head, I don't see anything wrong with that...but let me think about it. A 5080 spi scanner would be nice. A 2540 dpi scan of 645 would be 240 dpi at 13x19. I'd think that'd be a tad soft... You made some kind of arithmetic error. 2.25 x 1.75 is 645. At 2540, that would be 5715 x 4445, and with the long side at 19 that's 300PPI, and with the short side at 13 that's 341PPI. Yes, that's how I normally print. But it seems to me that 726 dpi is a tad overkill. Yes, but it doesn't matter...more does not degrade the imgae, only less. So the question is: assuming I downsample, how far can I downsample before I notice print quality degradation. The answer to that question is 250 dpi. Not for me...I can see differences up to 720, but the loss, IMO, is quite insignificant over about 460. Remember, I have scanning backs and Bayer pattern backs of the same resolution. There IS a difference in image quality, no doubt about it! Hmm. The experience here is that Bayer (D60/1Ds) images look very nice at actual pixels on the screen, and that I'm not doing that well with the scanner. And I haven't seen any scans on the net that were any better than what I'm getting... That's a tough thing to test on the web, unless you get a full res TIFF file... I do agree that the digital camera images are absolutely fantastic, it all depends on how much you enlarge them ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: unsubscribe filmscanners_digest
Wow, it certainly doesn't seem easy to unsubscribe :) Could someone be so kind as to tell me how. I thought I followed list server instructions, but no luck. Doesn't the text below this give you the recommended method of unsubscribing? Note it says listserver@... not filmscanners@..., so you can't simply reply to a post on the list to unsubscribe... -- -- 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: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
I'm kidding... I am also surprised by the results. The drum scan does show a lot more resolution than his Imacon scan. And the close up shows that there is no detail on the windows from the digital while the film has a good amount. I don't think he's denying that. His (Michael R.'s) point was that he liked the 1Ds 13x19 prints (or was it 12x18?) better than the MF prints. And that's very much in line with what he had to say a few years ago about the D30 vs 35mm scans: he liked the D30 8x10 (ok, up to 11x14 if ressed up) prints better. To me that sounds reasonable. Petru, It's the better than what I question when he does his comparisons. If he is lousy at film and scanning, then his conclusion is no surprise...and he should be if he's going to do testing like this, and claim to be an expert...but my take is he's not very good at film and scanning...so that draws into question the validity of his conclusions. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Film spotting...
Hi Frank, I simply cant imaging living with that! Perhaps you might want to send a roll to an pro lab to have processed? Id urge spending some time tracking this one down. Probably save you lots of time in the long run! Out of curiosity, what film is it? Regards, Austin It could be that the scanner is putting them there. I've thought of that. But sometimes I can see them scattered all over the side when observed through a 6X loupe. If I can actually see them in the loupe, I know I'm in trouble and I have to think hard before even putting the slide in my scanner: is this shot really going to be worth the agony I am about to experience? No amount of blowing and brushing the slide gets rid of these spots. I've tried Kodak processing as well as labs serving professionals. I have not tried washing them. Frankly, they look like chemical stains. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners DigestforFri 17 Jan, 2003 I have found that dust is not the problem. My negatives come back with dozens of tiny spots on them that blowing and wiping cannot remove, and regardless of the vendor who does the development. Some of them are so filthy I spend ten to twenty minutes in PS on one negative getting rid of them. I wish I could afford a new scanner that has automatic spot removal. I try to avoid working with negatives altogether. Sometimes slides are the same way, but less often. Frank, You might want to track down the source of those spots. Do you have any idea what they are? Are they IN the film? Have you tried washing a strip, say in distilled water and Photo-Flo, to see if the spots come off? I don't have that problem, and I've never heard anyone have that problem on a consistent basis, as you say you have. Finding the source would probably serve you better than getting a new scanner, unless you really *need* a new scanner ;-) 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: Newish Digital Tech
...but why would a PMT get more light, In semiconductor sensors, however, many, perhaps most, of the photons that hit the junction do absolutely nothing, so they're much less sensitive. Hi Paul, Id believe that PMTs have a much lower noise floor than CCDs and that is the reason for the much higher dynamic range, and obviously better shadow detail. Is that what you are talking about? As far CCD sensitivity...CCDs have a minimum number of photons before they can register, but I believe that once that level is reached, most of the photons that hit the sensing area are being counted (accumulated)...I don t believe they are doing nothing? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Newish Digital Tech
Karl, That's not how the Foveon chip works. There are no filters. They are taking advantage of the fact that different light frequencies have different depth penetrations into silicon. Well, yes and no...but anyway, filtering HAS to take place, or you could not distinguish between RGB. Essentially there is not going to be as clean a differentiation between the amount of light at the R,G and B sites, What EXACTLY is the sensing mechanism? Do you know, and if so, can you describe it? and they are relying on subractive calculation to compute the R and G values. Speculation, or do you have a resource for this information? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Wed 15 Jan, 2003
Hi Bill, So, my HP Photosmart is a consumer grade product, but I have problems with the arcane concept. What makes it arcane. Is the scanner so primitive as to be worthless? No, arcane doesnt mean worthless. The scanner might work just fine. I said arcane because its a scanner that not many people, today, might know much about, and you might find it difficult to get any support for it. What are the many problems. I would like to know what to look out for. I have no idea, and someone who obviously knows more than I do about this particular scanner could possibly help you out with that question. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: B W - Tips required...
Bob Geoghegan had a good reason for scanning in B W... i've always scanned in RGB... Shunith, Just as a note, your film scanner ALWAYS (unless it's a Leafscan ;-) scans in RGB no matter whether the data returned to you is converted to grayscale or left as RGB. I take it you are referring to film profiles. I don't believe all scanners offer them. These profiles are only tonal curves. Nothing wrong with that, but certainly something you can do your self in PS to an RGB scan. These profiles will only get you ballpark, if even. The actual tonality and grain of the film can change drastically with variances in exposure and development. Especially BW, as different developers/temperature/development times can give vastly different tonal response. People have been scanning film for quite some time without film profiles, with optimum results. In fact, I don't believe the high end scanners have these, or at least didn't...and no one (that I heard) complained. It seems more a feature of the new crop of mid-range desktop scanners (first one I saw them on was the SprintScan 4k). I thought they were a good idea at first, but found they were more problematic than useful. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Hi Paul, ...However, even in 8-bit mode, having a 10-bit DAC is useful because it keeps the color lookup table curves from introducing posterization through round-off errors. If it's 8 bit data, you are feeding the DAC only 8 bits, if you are using a 10 bit DAC, then the lower two bits are merely set to 0. The rounding error occurs in the conversion from N bits to 8 bits, which, I believe, is unavoidable, no matter how many bits your DAC has. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
... Anthony's claim that handling more memory than an individual instruction can access is both innefficient and difficult is wrong on both counts. Try processing tables that straddle address-space boundaries, and you'll see. Anthony, I don't know who wrote what program you believe supports your claim, but David's comment is right on. As you aren't a hardware engineer, it makes sense that you don't understand how this works, and the real issues involved. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CMYK rant (was Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?)
Anthony, Most of what is printed on paper in the world doesn't pass through a printer driver on a PC or Mac. Naw. MOST of what is printed on paper in the world DOES pass through a printer driver on a PC or a Mac, simply because there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of homeowners and corporate PCs with PS on it and an inkjet or laser printer attached. FAR more than there are PCs and Macs in the publishing world. Most of it passes through large or even huge offset or other types of printing presses... Er, yeah, just like the ones I, and everyone else, have in their home office/basement... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Hi David, 'Doze, Anthony's claim that handling more memory than an individual instruction can access is both innefficient and difficult is wrong on both counts. Accessing the whole of the address space from every instruction is hideously inefficient. Most machines provide modes where a base register plus a short offset field in the instruction is used. This is much more efficient than including the whole address in every instruction. At which point, the size of the base register is the only limit on program address space. Correct, AND depending on addressing mode, it could be a relative address, so it could be anywhere in any space. AND...no user process (on Windows NT architecture OSs anyway) addresses memory directly, it has to go through a logical to physical translation process. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Anthohy, As you aren't a hardware engineer, it makes sense that you don't understand how this works, and the real issues involved. I've known exactly how it works for several decades now. Oh really? Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Hi Paul, Yes, passing the 8 bit data through an 8 bit LUT would cause gaps/combining in anything but a linear/monotonic LUT (1:1)...it simply has to, which is the same reason to do tonal manipulations in a larger space. The video card includes a 256-entry lookup table (for each color) which gets loaded with a gamma correction curve (e.g., by Adobe Gamma Loader). Assuming that table doesn't just have a straight line in it, some values will be squeezed together, creating duplicates, and other values will be spread apart, doubling their distance. It may far more than double the distance. Any time you pass N bit data through an N bit LUT, you will have gaps/combining, unless the LUT is 1:1...then what would be the purpose of the LUT? If the lookup table and DAC had two more bits of fractional resolution, those low values wouldn't be duplicated, and the high values wouldn't have such large steps. Em, well...you are saying, say, a 1024 bit output LUT with a 256 input? That entirely depends on the data in the LUT on whether it does as you suggest (eliminate gaps/combining). The same curve data set in a 8 in 8 out vs an 8 in 10 out LUT will give you the exact same 8 MSBs, so Adobe would have to be aware of this. I assume you are talking about the curve being created to provide 10 bits out? Still, that can, depending on the curve, cause gaps/combining...and if you take the 8 MSBs of the 10 bits, they should be the same as the 8 bits out of an 8:8 LUT (which was my point initially), or the base curve would be different. So, I don't see how that helps, unless the lower two bits were visibly perceptible...and as you say, it may be (probably is) visibly imperceptible. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CMYK rant
Anthony, CMYK is very intimately related to scanning. Really? How so? What about it do you need to know to scan better? I believe nothing. There is nothing in making your scan that you can do differently given an intimate knowledge of CMYK or NO knowledge of it. If there is, please name it. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Hi Paul, Obviously, this isn't the case in the 64-bit versions of Windows for the Alpha... Er, I don't believe there is a 64 bit Windows for Alpha... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?
Anthony, The mistake engineers make is in believing that address spaces will be allocated sequentially starting with byte zero and ending with byte 2^N-1. But that's not how it actually works. Engineers tend to assume that a given address space has more space than anyone will ever need and allocate the space in extremely wasteful but easy-to-code ways that cause it to be exhausted with alarming speed. WHAT engineers are you talking about? PROGRAMMERS? Who says that programmers are engineers? They are not, or at least not all of them. Once the software is in place, it behaves like hardware. What on earth are you talking about? Sounds to me like you simply not understand the difference between software and hardware, and how they actually work. Cobol is not applicable. Contrary to common myth, even though software is not hardwired into a machine, it is extraordinarily difficult to change, especially when loaded into hundreds of millions of machines around the world. If this were not the case, we would have all moved to IPv6 overnight when IPv4 near exhaustion. And how does that qualify the statement you made above? In the case of Windows NT and its successors, the problem is that the original engineers Again, WHAT engineers? You apparently mistakenly believe that ALL programmers are engineers, and they are not. Programmers are programmers. Some programmers are engineers, but that is the exception to the rule. Just because you write code does not make you an engineer. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CMYK rant (was Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?)
Paul, Do they color manage their type? Color printing, yes, but black ink, no. Austin I don't think that comes close to the volume of printing represented by daily newspapers. It's well-known that newspapers make up the largest identifiable category of trash in landfills. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:pderocco;ix.netcom.com From: Austin Franklin Naw. MOST of what is printed on paper in the world DOES pass through a printer driver on a PC or a Mac, simply because there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of homeowners and corporate PCs with PS on it and an inkjet or laser printer attached. FAR more than there are PCs and Macs in the publishing world. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compression Wide range digitalcameras
Tony, CCD sensors can now achieve 14 stops range, What full frame imaging CCD sensors do that in a normal camera? There are some that if you actively cool them, and control their environment, you might get that kind of response from them...but that's not really a usable device for a 35mm-esque type camera. The Kodak one I am working with right now, and was just announced three months ago, is only good for 72dB, which is 12 bits. And of those 12 bits, really only 11 are good most of the time... Also, that 72dB is over the entire range of the sensor...(noise level of 21e' to a saturation level of 94K e', which is where the 72dB comes from)...so you never really get the whole range, except in very controlled situations. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
As both you and Henning suggested, based upon review of my files, my suggestion of mold growth at over 30% humidity was too conservative. After doing a scan of my physical paper files, I found my memory had failed me, as a reference by Kodak regarding preventing fungal growth on films indicated humidity levels should be kept under 50%, not 30%, as I had indicated. (Kodak Pamphlet AE-22) Prevention and Removal of Fungus on Prints and Films I then did a Google search, and several sources suggested anything under 60% was probably safe. So, it would appear your 45% humidity level is safe under most circumstances. Kodak and other sources did suggest fungicidal agents can be used during the processing to further lessen risks. Art Why Arthur, thank you kindly for both your research, and the information! I really appreciate it. I'll get that pamphlet, hopefully in PDF format. Regards, Austin P.S. More tea, Arthur? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Not off hand. It probably depends upon temperature and general mold conditions. We live in a very mold prone environment here. I think Kodak had some studies which I read many years ago about suggested storage for film and they made some mention about optimum humidity levels. I might have it here somewhere... Hi Arthur, I would greatly appreciate the link or reference. Regards, Austin P.S. Would you please be so kind as to pass the crumpets? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
I also have a dehumidifier in my lab...I can't say if that helps a lot or not, but I don't have any dust problems on my stored film. On film I simply leave lying around, perhaps. Actually, a moderate humidity level keeps dust levels down, by reducing static, and by making the dust heavier and more likely to fall to the ground. Hi Arthur, Agreed. I keep it at around %45. The circulation of air (and filtering thereof), as the air through the dehumidifier, probably pulls dust off on the damp coil...that's speculation, but sounds right at first thought ;-) 20-30% humidity is probably optimum in those terms, or you can get mold growth. I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
Jim, Why? Like I do, he simply checks/cleans his negatives before scanning. I thought he was describing my temporary quarters at first and I have a 1/2 mile dirt/gravel driveway...I have the exact same environment, except I don't have a paper cutting farm in my basement. One key is either keeping them clean in the first place, and therefore having to do minor if any, dust removal...or simply doing some level of dust removal prior to scanning. Also, as even Arthur has corroborated with me on, different scanners seem, for what ever reason, to have/not have dust problems, at least the dust is more/less visible, or physically there/not there. I believe this is reasonably universally known. Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? Art, Sheesh, I sure hope Austin doesn't read this! -JimD At 07:03 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: You've raised exactly the crux of the issue. Nikon scanner users have no choice. They must use dICE when it is available to them. I have an admission to make. I live is a rural area, where the air is often dusty. We live on a dirt and gravel road. My digital studio is in a finished basement. It is carpeted with a medium pile rubber backed glued down carpet. Because of all the equipment and furniture I have all over the place in my work area, and all the paper everywhere, and because I still have a lot of magnetically sensitive storage media around, I have only, in the last 10 years vacuumed here twice. It is just too much work to do it. I run part of my business in the same area where I manufacture paper goods which are cut and laminated by the thousands, and create a lot of particulate matter. The area directly connects to an unfinished basement area where I do shop work, auto repair, do airbrush painting, we store our recyclables, etc. and the rafters are covered in cobwebs. We have a 35 year old oil heat central hot air furnace, which is NOT clean, and the ducts have been cleaned exactly NEVER since we moved here, over 20 years ago, and were probably never cleaned since the house was built. Most all of the house is carpeted and the house has stupid blown textured ceilings which not only collect dust, but shed this white plaster-mica mix. We are in an earthquake zone and get hit every few weeks with one which gives the house a good shake. We have a standard low tech filter in the furnace and a electrostatic cleaner (ozone producing) which we run about once a month for a few hours. The chimney and firebox have been cleaned once in 20 years. I occasionally dust the digital lab area and I run a manual floor sweeper about once a year, if that, on the exposed areas of the carpet. Other than the spiders, we have no pets. If I run my finger down any flat surface I get a fair wad of paper dust and general dust. I do keep my slide and negs in boxes and holders. I use either a very soft 3/4 wide nylon artist's paintbrush (most of the time) (no radio- isotopes involved) or sometimes I set up an air compressor with a nozzle (only when running a lot of slides through). I print up to 13 wide and sometimes I double that to make proofs with a seam down the middle, so some images get pretty large. Some films are over 20 years old and have been around, and have some scratches. The SS4000+ scans I do require minimal to no spotting. Rarely do I have to spend more than 2-3 minutes at most to clone and clean images, and that is mostly when it is a very large print. On the other hand, every scan I do on the Minolta Dual Scan II needs some spotting work regardless how much I clean the film and some need a lot. If you have only worked with a Nikon or Minolta scanner, you probably think I am speaking from another dimension when I say even under the conditions I have here I need to do very little spotting on those scans. So, now that I have done a true confession, I hope you can still respect me ;-) Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: How does one do this? Seal the room and install an air filtration system? Wear a smock, hairnet and gloves? I store slides in boxes with no gaps between the slides, yet I still find dust on them. I clean them with proper fluid and pads until I can't see anything under a magnifier, pop them in the scanner (LS-2000), and find there's still crap all over them if I turn off ICE. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Austin Franklin Well, I'd say if you want the best results from any scanner, simply keep your work environment, film storage, scanner etc. free of dust. For many years before Digital ICE people made dust free images in both the darkroom and with scanners. IMO, Digital ICE
[filmscanners] RE: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Henning, SCSI is often not logical when connections get a bit complicated, or even when they're simple. On my last computer I had 4 SCSI chains; 2 simple ones allowing 7 devices and 2 of the 15 device kind. Some combinations needed termination in the middle, There is never any reason to provide termination in the middle of a SCSI chain. If you do, then something is very wrong. The typical problems people have are device being terminated that shouldn't, bad termination, not using ACTIVE terminators at both ends, cable problems...like using very long cable to one device and short cables to others... A host of many problems...but NEVER should the bus be terminated in the middle. It may work, or appear to work (meaning it'll work on odd phases of the moon or something like that), but it isn't a technically sound solution. Just try different cables and termination combinations. This is what I believe gets people in trouble. SCSI termination rules are really very simple. Actively terminate the ends ONLY. Most devices themselves provide active termination when enabled. Keep cable lengths equal, and don't go over 18'. Use decent cables, though I know it's tough to know what a decent cable is... I've dealt with many many many many SCSI problems, and the above summarizes the problems I've found with 99.999%. Sometimes there is a device problem, like the device violates the SCSI spec by having too much stub length inside the box...or doesn't really terminate correctly... If a SCSI device can't be seen by the computer or doesn't respond consistently, it's usually a termination or cable issue. That is very true. One other issue is TRMPWR, termination power. This is a rather confusing issue. It is typically provided to the SCSI chain by some device...and it's important when you are using external termination. If you are terminating the ends of the SCSI bus with devices, they should be active termination internally, so TRMPWR is really not important in this case. Quite a few times I found TRMPWR not set-up correctly, especially on disk drives, as their description of how to set it up is typically confusing. It's also fused, so if the fuse is blown, and you think you are providing TRMPWR, you may not be. If you are using external termination, get an ACTIVE terminator with a power LED...this will show if you have TRMPWR on the SCSI bus. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Tom, The input is a SCSI 1 cable (50 pin) the output (to another SCSI device) is 25 pin. I believe either can be used to connect to the SCSI card. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Hi Tom, Possibly termination? I don't remember, but is that device permanently terminated, or is there a switch to enable internal termination? If you don't use the internal termination, and it's the last device in the SCSI chain, you do have to provide a terminator either in-line where the cable attaches to the unit, or on the other port. It typically is best to use the internal termination, since it's active termination, which is better. Regards, Austin My instructions indicated that but since it didn't work with the 25pin connector and did work with the SCSI 1 I thought that there was a type in the instructions. Both cables were okay so I don't know what the problem might be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Which SCSI Card for SS4000 Tom, The input is a SCSI 1 cable (50 pin) the output (to another SCSI device) is 25 pin. I believe either can be used to connect to the SCSI card. Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Which SCSI Card for SS4000
Hi Tom, ...my SCSI card is device 7 (the maximum) thus auto termination is working. You know that device ID number and auto termination aren't linked at all. The SCSI device ID can be anything, the order only matters for boot if you don't specify a specific device to boot from...at least that's true with most SCSI BIOS's. The termination switch on the SS4000 was set to OFF previously and, of course, now it still is. Perfect... With the exception of the flatbed scanner, all the other devices have been up and running since last Christmas and there haven't been any problems. Adding the flatbed scanner was simple and everything else still works. Check that the flatbed scanner IS terminated. It's the last PHYSICAL device (not SCSI ID related) that needs termination...so your HP flatbed should be terminated, as well as what ever internal device you have that's the last on the chain. No other devices should be terminated. And...just a suggestion, keep the cable lengths equal on your outside the box devices...if you use a 3' cable from the computer to the SS4k, use a 3' cable from the SS4k to the flatbed. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Dynamic range
But ignoring valid points is precisely what you do, and if you disagree I will happily repost many items you have never answered. Would you like me to do that? Julian I kinda would. I'd like to see exactly where you each stand at this point. Damn, Toddyou REALLY want to talk about this. Don't you have anything better to spend your time on? There's probably an on-line discussion group that might be able to help... ;-) Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Dynamic range -- resolution/levels
Roy, All the stuff about number of levels and resolution are artifacts of the digital process and not part of the DyR concept which existed way before the word digital was even coined. ... I believe the concept of resolution is inherent in the concept of dynamic range. Whether that works for you or not, at least for me, and for many other engineers I know, is an important understanding. Fair enough. But I like to show why I believe that the concept of resolution that results isn't very meaningful. See below. It's SO meaningful, that EVERY PAPER showing how to calculate the number of bits used does it based on dynamic range! How on earth do you explain that? But the SIZE of the range is ONE number -- and it can be mathematically calculated with a subtraction OR with a ratio. In the dynamic range case we always calculate the SIZE of the range with a ratio = max/min. I see how size can have a merit (which is a relative ratio), and range, as they apply to dynamic range. Size in the fact that the largest signal is N times larger than the smallest...and range in that you can say all integer values from 1:1 to N:1. BUT...realize that all integer values from 1:1 to N:1 really denotes a resolution over a particular range too...that you have N discrete values. Yes, but I never said integer. In the real-world i.e. analog, there no reason why any real number couldn't be used. What's wrong with going from 1:1 to 1.01:1 to 1.02:1 ... Because noise is 1, and you can only measure in increments of noise. In a system that has noise of, say, 1V, you certainly can't measure 1.01V, now can you? Here's why I have a problem with the concept of resolution: Let me go through a simple example of a (semi-idealized) scanner. Here's the basic specs of the scanner: Density Range: 0D to 3.6D Bit Depth: 12 bits Number of levels: 4096 A couple of simple observations: The density range is also 12 photographic stops -- each stop is .3 of density so 12*.3 = 3.6 You can chop up the density range into 12 one-stop ranges i.e.: 0 to .3, .3 to .6, .6 to .9 ... etc to 3.3 to 3.6 Photographically and human perception wise each of these one-stop ranges are equivalent in size. So now let's chop the density range into the 4096 levels. The density range 3.6 divided by 4096 gives a little less than 0.001D per level. Approximately, 300 levels for each of the 12 one-stop range. Sounds like a great concept of resolution, doesn't it? We get a new level every 0.001D change in density -- it sure looks like a resolution of 0.001D. But that's not how scanners work. They know NOTHING ABOUT density values at all! They only know photons, and how many photons the CCD sees. They see relative values output PURELY AS A VOLTAGE (or possibly current), and that voltage has a range, and has noise. You can only measure as accurately as noise, and as such, noise defines the resolution of that system. snip Austin, don't take my word or the web's word for it. Try it yourself. Roy, I've designed film scanners, and have been designing digital imaging systems for over 20 years. I KNOW how they work. All this stuff you wrote is simply irrelevant. What ever the scanner does with the data, or what the data actually represents WRT what the human eye can see, or density values etc. has absolutely NO bearing on capturing the data, and the DYNAMIC RANGE of the input signal, which is what we are talking about. You obviously need to capture the input signal, and what determines at what RESOLUTION you capture it is the dynamic range of the input signal...nothing else. Specifically, the number of bits that you capture the input signal should be such that you resolve down to noise...and you do that by calculating the dynamic range, and, as I've always said, and said, and said...you NEED so many bits to capture a particular dynamic range, period. If it isn't the dynamic range of the input signal to the A/D that determines how many bits you need/should use...what ever you want to call it, then WHAT does? Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
