[filmscanners] RE: The last of the Sprintscan 4000
David, I feel that I probably am expressing an opinion that a lot of other members on this list have. Here, here! David is the reason I (finally) decided to buy an SS 4000 over the many other fine 4000 dpi film scanners. Dan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan 7.4.2
I scanned 4 slides: 2 Fuji F100; 1 Fuji Velvia and 1 Kodachrome since installing version 7.4.2 What are you setting the media to? Image or color slide? Thanks, Dan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: VueScan 7.4.2 - an appreciation, and questions about file sizing
Thank you, Julian! I share the same-- -- appreciation for Ed's efforts -- wish for a more detailed users guide -- confusion over the relationship between resolution and image size Looking forward to the ensuing conversation, Dan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging
Matrox G200 are superb cards for photo editing at up to 1600x1200 24bit. Later Matrox cards with more features and twin monitor capabilities are, if anything, slightly less sharp and with some driver issues. Is it possible to put two G200 cards in a Win 2k or XP box and have dual monitor capability for Photoshop? Dan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)? I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but doesn't show pics. Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand words. Dan
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Lynn, Rafe, Rob and others: One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~taiji/gallery/t21.htm ??? I see this sort of artifact a lot in jpegs on the web. Is this what is called jaggies? Do they show up in prints? Thanks, Dan
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Robert, The old JPEG (not JPEG 2000) does code three channels Y, Cr, Cb. The channels Cr and Cb are downsampled. Then each channel is divided in blocks of 8x8. For each such block you do a Discret Cosinus Transform (DCT), devide each of the 64 resulting values by one of 64 numbers defined by the quantization table (higher frequency values are divided by higher numbers then low frequency values), and then Huffman (arithmetic coding is also possible but is less common) entropy encoded. This is true for lossy compression. Now if you do a high compression you divide the values after the DCT by higher factors so you get more 0s. Because of that the transition of one 8x8 block becomes less smooth and you see 8x8 block in the final image. I guessed as much, but I had thought it was Guffman, not Huffman, and I think I forgot to carry a 1. ;) Dan
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Thanks, Lynn! I look forward to whatever artifact samples you care to share. :) Dan
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Rafe, I'm willing to bet that Dan Honemann has his video set to 256 colors (indexed color.) It was set to 16-bit (True Color), so I changed it to 24-bit (High Color) and rebooted. Still see the lines in the sky, but this is only a Dell Inspiron 3500 notebook PC with a NeoMagic MagicMedia 256AV card and a 14 LCD screen. No doubt something in that mix isn't up to snuff. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Hopefully I'll get my 120 tomorrow and will have the weekend to test... Paul and Lawrence, Please keep us posted on your experiences with the SS 120. Eager to hear about this scanner from users, Dan
RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Why do you (or Ed) think 2700 dpi is not high enough for slide images? What are you planning to do with your scans? Print up to 13x18's on an Epson 1280. Ed had written the following about the LS-40: It's a good value, and the difference in resolution/D-Max isn't significant for what I scan. If you want to scan things larger than 35mm, use a slide feeder or scan mainly slide film or ISO 50 film (none of which I do myself), then you might make different tradeoffs. Since I do have lots of Velvia (ISO 50) and Provia slide film, I figured it might be wise to heed Ed and aim higher than the IV (at 2900 dpi). The Polaroid SS 4000 seems a good compromise (in price, anyway) between the Nikon LS 40 and LS 4. Realistically, given all I've come to understand so far, I'll probably only be satisfied with epson prints up to 8x10, and will send out the handful of exceptional slides/negs to be drum scanned and lightjetted. That being the case, I may opt for the LS-40 (IV) after all, since it's the least expensive, and would likely be fine for 8x10 prints and (certainly) for proof sheets and web jpegs. I'd had my mind up toward the LS-4000, but it sounds a bit fiddly, with such narrow depth of field, film flatness issues, possible banding in dense areas, yadda yadda yadda. ICE^3 sounds great, but I don't have any slides/negatives more than a year old, so I doubt I really need it (I'm curious, though: why can't folks use ICE on polaroid or other scans?). I've heard nary an unkind word about the SS 4000, and it's been out long enough to (hopefully) have any kinks worked out. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on this list. :) It's a pivotal time, and it makes buying decisions more difficult than ever. Right now I _don't_ have a bunch of lenses and cameras (well, not entirely true: I have an M6, Hexar RF, and three Leica M lenses, which is investment enough, I suppose), but I'm in the market both for an SLR kit (for macro, telephoto and zoom lenses) and a digital darkroom setup (PC, scanner, software, printers, etc.). I figure on spending $10-20k when all is said and done (spaced out over a period of 2-3 years). I'm not opposed to spending $3k of that on a very high quality film scanner, and several thousand for a top-notch SLR and pro lenses. But I have to wonder if I wouldn't be better off combining those expenses and getting a Nikon D1x, or (better still) waiting another few months to see what Canon and others have to offer. With the near term possibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, I have to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a better image, all around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V, and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi. Not sure I believe it, myself, but it is very provocative. Yep, I saw that, too, and I _don't_ believe it. But I believe we're not far from it, and will likely get there within the next 5 years. (Digital backs for MF cameras may already be there, but it may take another 5 years for prices to become affordable.) Dan
RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most of my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with my choice. So what did you finally choose, Peter? And _are_ you happy with it (so far)? I shoot color slide film (velvia and provia 100--leaning toward standardizing on the latter) and bw print (everything, from delta to t-max to agfa to tri-x, but I'm considering standardizing on the C41-processed XP2 super), and my oldests slides/negs are only a year or so old, and all are kept in sleeves and boxed carousels so I imagine they are pretty clean. I'd thought I'd start with the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV), since it's the cheapest of the three I'm considering, but Ed and others have hinted that it doesn't have high enough resolution for slide film--and I'm more concerned about those than the negatives since I'm comfortable enough in a darkroom for bw work. So that brings me to the LS 4000 vs. SS 4000: the same decision (no doubt) that many have faced. The fact that my slides and negatives aren't scratched (not that I know of, anyway) and that the price of the SS is quite a bit lower than the LS, has me now leaning toward the Polaroid. The only concern is the lower DMax and the lack of a batch feeder, but I can probably live with both of those limitations. Hmmm. Did I just make up my mind? :) Dan
RE: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
The pure fact of the matter is that zoom lenses are not equal to telephoto lenses. Never have been, never will be. There are always exceptions. The Leica 70-180/2.8R is actually as good as, or better than, most single focal length lenses throughout its range. But then you pay for that quality, both in dollars and ounces. Dan
filmscanners: what defines this quality?
Okay, I think I've hit on the image quality I'm looking for, but I don't have the words to express it--so maybe someone here can help. Do you know the different look between something shot on film vs. videotape? I remember as a kid refusing to watch any television show that was shot on videotape (I didn't know what made the difference back then, I only knew there was one): typically the local news and soap operas. Then sitcoms started coming out on video, starting with All in the Family. 60 Minutes used to be shot on film, and sometime in the 80's they switched over to video. To me, the difference was night and day, but no one else in my family could see it. That same difference exists (again, for me) in images shot through some lenses vs. others. I remember seeing a color print at a friend's house that was simply amazing: the colors were so rich and deep and glossy that it looked like the print was _liquid_--and this despite having been produced back in the early 1970's (and obviously well before digital). My friend told me his ex-wife shot it with an Olympus camera (didn't know what lens, but likely a Zuiko). I see some of this difference--though a bit more subtly--between color slides shot through Leica glass vs. Nikkors. And the same difference seems to me to show up between the Leafscan 45 and Nikon 4000 images at http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html So, if anyone knows what I'm talking about (and I have come to appreciate that many folks do not see a difference between film and video footage), what makes this difference? It seems like the film-based images contains more _light_ somehow, and it makes the images appear richer even than life (which tends to my weary eyes to look more and more like videotape). Is it contrast? Color saturation? Sharpness? I have noticed that some video when shot in bright daylight outdoors can begin to approach the quality of film footage, but never quite gets there. In any event, I'm struggling to find an affordable way to get prints that look like _that_, the way my slides do under a loupe and when projected. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Rafe B wrote: The differences are 100% attributable to scanner settings, and entirely fixable, with either scanner, at scan-time. The Nikon image can be made to look like the Leaf image (in Photoshop, after the scan) but not vice-versa, since shadow detail has been lost in the Leaf image. That's all I needed to know--thanks. I take it you're the proud owner of an LS 4000? Dan
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is important, like dpi, I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I read here, sounds like 3,000 dpi. density range, Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most important factor. Let's say 3.6 DMax. ICE, I shoot mostly Fuji velvia, provia and astia slides, but I also have a lot of bw negatives (agfa, delta, tri-X and XP2 super). My slides are a year old or less, but the keepers have been living in carousels (boxed) and often projected, so there is likely to be some dust. ICE could therefore be a big timesaver for me with the slides; I understand it doesn't work so well with Kchrome (only have a handful of these) and bw like Tri-X (have a lot more of this). My main priority, though, are the fuji slides. ROC, GEM These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the expense of sharpness. I shoot with Leica lenses because my eyes can see the better edge sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and lack of veiling flare. I'm beginning to see that what I'm most concerned about with color image quality is _contrast_. For bw, it's tonality. I guess I want a scanner that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k (US) price range? etc, what you will be doing with the output, Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. BW will go to an Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. and of course the price you want to pay. Up to $3k, but I'd be willing to save up and spend more--even as much as three times that amount--if it meant final prints that look as good as my projected slides. That's why I spent the extra money on Leica lenses--I can see a difference, and to me it is very much like the difference between the Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at least) is probably the most important. My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital imagery can give me the look I want). For bw, I'm looking for deep, dark blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a bit much, eh?! Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the answers will really help you make the decision. I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place like West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/index.htm) using Tango drum scanners and Lightjet printers--but I can't. It could be that a good compromise would be to do the scanning and Photo Shop tweaking myself and send the best out for lightjet prints. If so, I'm wondering if I can find a scanner that will give me digital files worthy of a lightjet--or even if I could hope for prints from an Epson that would come close to that quality. I'm not a pro and have not yet even considered selling my work. But as an amateur, image quality is very important to me. I have many friends who would like to have prints of my slides, but the cibachromes I've had done have really been disappointing to me--they just don't capture the look of the projected images at all. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and I'm such a novice that I have difficulty expressing what qualities I'm after. This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process I went through about 2 years ago. This list really did the most help after I narrowed the field. Hope so. But I also believe that at some point I'll just to have to make a choice (flipping a coin if necessary) and dive in to discover on my own what works and what doesn't for my eyes. I have to say that the Leafscan 45 sample at the pytolwany site is the first one that really caught my attention as to the look I'm after--and maybe that's all the pointers I need. I never hear anything about this scanner, though, and worry that I won't be up to mastering it. And I only have 35 mm slides (should have mentioned that earlier)--no other formats. Dan
RE: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
This quality you're looking for comes from perfect practice in every step of the image-taking and image-making process. It involves far more than the perfect film scanner. Understood. But perfect practice in every step of the process means eliminating any potential weak links in the chain. That's why I'm being particular about which scanner. I know I can dedicate my time and energy to perfecting the use of the tools; that's why I want to find tools that will reward that effort. Start with a large negative. Use the slowest, finest- grained films. Use a tripod. Use the finest lenses. Use mirror lock-up (if the camera is an SLR.) If you're after sharpness, use the right aperture (not f/64, but about 3 or 4 stops below wide-open.) Yes, I'm doing all of this (when practical)--but purposely confining myself to 35mm for now. It would seem a waste to bother shooting nature scenes with tripod, mirror lockup (not necessary with a rangefinder), cable-release, middle apertures, Leica optics and Velvia film only to use a scanner that degrades the image to that of a hand held shot through a point and shoot. I could go on and describe some of the things you ought to do in Photoshop, (after acquiring the perfect scan) but that's even more off-topic. Oh, and we haven't discussed printers, papers and inks yet, oh my g. Yeah, I realize that I've wandered OT on this, and should take up the rest on Digital Silver. I'm really just looking for the right scanner and sanning techniques here; I can get the rest from other more appropriate sources. But I appreciate what you're saying. Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms of enlargement) with 35 mm film. Sure, you can blow it up to almost any size you want, but the same image on a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print. Again, understood. But as long as I'm in 35 mm format, I want to squeeze the most I possibly can from it. I imagine we all do. Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras, and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that. I know the temptation well. So far I've managed to resist, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time (though I'm such an extremist that when I leave 35mm it will likely be for 8x10). Thanks for your thoughts, Dan
RE: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice. I once met a woman about my age (40) who has shot with only one camera since high school (and she's been a professional photographer since then): an old Wista 8x10 with a single lens. That's it. She only shoots bw film and always uses palladium printing. And her work is absolutely stunning. You can see some of it from here: http://www.mastersofphotography.com/Directory/rdeluise/rdeluise_bio.html Dan
RE: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
I seem to remember watching American Football for the first time in the UK some time back and thinking how fantastic the image quality was. I then found out that its shot on film. Is this still the case? It's funny, that. The games themselves are shot on videotape, but the shows that highlight the games are shot on high quality film. It's so much better to watch those highlights than it is the games! I've given up comparing prints to the slides, I just haven't got enough money to resolve it ;-( Don¹t get me wrong, I get excellent results from my Canon FS2710 (http://homepage.eircom.net/~ricwalsh/index.htm) and Epsom 870, but comparing them up against chromes is disheartening...so I don¹t do it anymore and I'm happy. Nice photos, Richard. I'd say you're doing well. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover I'm aiming too high in trying to capture that elusive look of movie film or chromes. I've heard that lightjet prints come closest. I guess my goal is to come closest to lightjets, then, as I simply can't afford to have all my work done that way (and certainly can't afford a lightjet printer!). Dan
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Doug, Thanks for your thoughts (and useful links) on scanners. I like your work; in particular, this one: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=137114 I'm prepared for the learning curve and dazzled already. Mostly I'm impressed with the intelligent folks and posts found on this list. (One thing I've discovered here, however, is that often it takes my posts a full 8-12 hours after sending them before they show up on the list; not sure if that is a problem on my end, or par for the course.) I just installed Photoshop 6 to start learning ahead of getting my scanner. I look forward to Mr. Sleeps review of the new crop of scanners too. You might wait for his sage analysis. Me, too! For now, my choice would be the LS 4000, although I haven't ruled out the SS 120. The Leafscan is an intriguing alternative, but I have a vague notion I'd have to be as bright as Austin to get the most of it, and that just ain't gonna happen in this lifetime. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Ed, If I were only buying one film scanner, I'd buy the CoolScan IV (LS-40). It's a really terrific scanner. I will given this serious consideration. I'd narrowed the choice down to the LS 4000 or SS 120 (I know, these are in different leagues), and was leaning toward the latter (since I _am_ only buying one film scanner, and can afford to spend up to $3k). Are you suggesting that the LS-40 represents better value (less resolution and D-Max, but also less expensive), or that the differences in resolution/D-Max are so small as to be insignificant, or that this scanner has less bugs than others and so is worth the trade-offs in res/D-Max? Or all of the above? Thanks, Dan
RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway down the page at this site: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear. Is this the effect of greater resolution? Or can the Nikon scan be corrected in Photo Shop somehow to look as clear (can't think of a better word) as the Leafscan's? Dan
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1 Available
Ed, I just released VueScan 7.1 for Windows, Linux and Mac OS 8/9/X. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Will this version work safely with the Polaroid SS 120--or is that restriction still in place? Thanks, Dan
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I am really enjoying the email on workflow and hope that others will post theirs. I remember Johnny Deadman offering to write down his workflow once, but it was just before I went offline for a few weeks and I never did get to see it. I find it enormously helpful to learn how folks go about digital scanning and printing, and it's sure to save me some time and frustration as I begin my own journey down this bumpy road. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light
Question: Does the same principle of opening up the shadow details work with scanned negatives? In asking this, I am aware of the manipulations that can be done with shadow details with PhotoShop, et alwhich are certainly easier to do than with the conventional dodging techniques in photographic enlarging. I'm new to this, but common sense tells me that scanning, like an enlarger, cannot possibly pull detail out of shadows that isn't there on the negative in the first place. The Leica Noctilux (50/f1) lens is reputed to have this quality: it can put shadow details onto film that are often not seen at the time of the shot. Once the shadow detail is there, it's then a matter of finding the right h/w s/w combination to pull them into the digitized file. Popular Photography's latest review (yes, I know, Pop Photo has long been a bastion of rigorous testing g) awards the Polaroid SS 120 top honors in this department. Dan
RE: filmscanners: off subject
Is there a decent 12X18 inch printer available to print color photo's that d oesn't cost an arm and a leg? The Epson 1280, for $500 USD (or 1270 for about $100 less). What more could you ask for? At least the printer decision is easy, Dan
RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light
It could be you may be don't understand what dynamic range and/or density ratio values are? If not, I can explain it... Please do! Also, I assume lp/mm means line pairs per millimeter; if so, why are they always measured in pairs? Thanks, Dan
filmscanners: the $64 question
You want to scan color slide film (no Kchrome) and bw negs and output to an Epson 1280 (or 1160 + piezo for the bw)--typically 11x14 prints. You capture images on film with Leica M and Canon L glass (if that matters). Finally, your work is all 35 mm but you want to keep the possibility open of scanning 6x's. Assuming you can afford to spend up to $3500, what do you get: Nikon LS 4000, LS 8000, or the Polaroid Sprint Scan 120? From all that I've read so far, I'm leaning (ever so slightly) toward the SS 120. Dan
filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)
Either way, high resolution scanners seem to dictate high capacity storage needs. I'd be interested to hear how others are storing and archiving 4000dpi scans. How about the new Iomega Peerless portables (10 and 20GB, USB and Firewire)? Anyone tried these yet? Dan
RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
What are the best color and bw films in terms of scanning? From what I've read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color, and the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) for bw. Are there others? Also, if one is planning ultimately to scan and maintain files in digital format (and print from there), are there any advantages left to shooting transparencies as opposed to negatives--given that the latter has so much more exposure latitude? Or does the finer resolution of slide film still make this the preferred emulsion when scanning? Dan
RE: filmscanners: Lamda, resolution + poor service
In California, ones with good reps in the fine art world include: http://www.calypsoinc.com http://www.westcoastimaging.com http://www.colorfolio.com Could anyone please list references or URL's for high quality scan/print services on the _east_ coast (I'm in Baltimore). Thanks, Dan
