[filmscanners] Re: VueScan vs. SilverFast with negs
Personally I prefer Nikonscan 3 to any scan driver I've used, especially for color negatives. With Nikonscan set up correctly for color management you may be amazed at color neg scan quality just using Nikonscan's defaults. PhotoCal and Spyder aren't that expensive, why not do it? Dave - Original Message - From: Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: [filmscanners] VueScan vs. SilverFast with negs Within several days I'm going to buy a film scanner (LS-4000ED) finally. I can buy it with or without SilverFast bundled (of course the price difference is considerable). Do I really need this software? I know VueScan quite well, I use it with my Agfa Arcus 1200 flatbed scanner, I I appreciate many of it's qualities, I can even live with its user interface :-) But putting UI aside, I'm most interested in the capabilities of those programmes in delivering good scans from negatives. As I haven't tried VS in this respect I can't judge how it works. Does anybody have experience with both VS and SF+NegaFix in scanning color negs? Are the profiles in NegaFix superior to VS's profiles? And another question having its roots in my lack of real experience with filmscanners: Will I be able to deliver professional quality scans (mostly from slides) without calibrated monitor, IT-8 and so on, relying only on my common sense and knowledge of scanning rudiments? I have a friend who can give me for scanning 50-100 slides which he uses then in a printed magazine. Being careful and 'tidy' with what I have, can I fullfil professional's demands or must I invest in calibration equipment? I personally always had the feeling that without calibration one can get at least 90% of the 'ultimate quality. What confirms my feeling is my experience with a scanning bureau with LS-8000ED, Silverfast+Negafix, Silverfast HDR and IT-8 calibration. Every time I used this bureau I had to tweak the scans in Photoshop's levels, curves and color balance a little. Never was I able to use the scan without any correction. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: new 4x5 Nikon scanner?
*IF* the rumor's true, hope they do the stretchy one. (We don need no stinkin banana's:) It took me a little practice to master the Nikon holders, but after a week or so I've been getting consistently sharp scans. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4x5 eh? That should bend like a banana in the Nikon holders then! Dave King wrote: I heard a tantalizing rumor today that Nikon is preparing a scanner similar to the LS-8000 that will scan up to 4x5 at a price point similar to the 8000. Hope it's true! Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: new 4x5 Nikon scanner?
The 35mm strip film holder has slots for two strips, and I find film plane parallelism better with a strip of film in both (whether I'm scanning both or not). I use a blank strip for that purpose. Nikon supplies a blank strip to prevent flare, but it's thicker than film and I think may throw parallelism off. I dismount slides and tape (stretching) to the smooth side of the grey half of a Weiss plastic mount, then put that into the slide holder. I took the thin aluminum framing mask out of the mount, and the cutout is then oversized. Using only half the mount, the film plane is where it should be. The medium format strip holder takes a little practice, but once you get the feel it's pretty easy to use and gets film flat, except when there's an unsupported free end near live image area. The middle of that end tends to go out of focus, so I try to cut film so the important frame has a little extra on the free end. Or one can tape a blank extension to that end if necessary. Dave - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: new 4x5 Nikon scanner? Dave, So what's the trick with the Nikon film holders? (I'm waiting for delivery of an LS-8000) Åke -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave King Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: new 4x5 Nikon scanner? *IF* the rumor's true, hope they do the stretchy one. (We don need no stinkin banana's:) It took me a little practice to master the Nikon holders, but after a week or so I've been getting consistently sharp scans. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT - anal(ly) retentive...
Why don't you guys just get married? - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, You regularly chastise people for using inaccurate or incomplete terms. Shall we discuss depth of FIELD versus depth of FILM as an example, in spite of the fact that EVERYONE knew what the people were referring to? Yet you found it necessary to parrot out of some obscure book not once, but on two separate occasions. On the other hand, the term anal as you used it, in the Freudian sense, is actually half a term, as it only refers in that context to a psychosexual stage, which can refer to two very opposite personality defects. A bit like saying dMAX and dMIN are the same thing. Your excuse that it is common use is irrelevant, well, at least it is when you are trying to make some arcane point about someone else's posting, so I see no reason to let you escape your own hell this time. Being that you have, on many occasions (I could quote them if you like) given me (and others) a load of anally retentive motivated crap over the years for my/our apparent misuse or inaccurate use of terms, or that I was not of your profession (an engineer), I thought I give you just a wee taste of your own medicine. You see, I have my degree in Pre-medical and Psychology, and studied Freud, and others in some detail, and your use of the term is sloppy, incomplete, confusing and inaccurate, something, admittedly very out of character for someone as anally retentive as you tend to be. Don't like how it feels then, do you? So, now you know exactly what my point was. And apparently, I made it. And with this, I will depart from this subject, without further comment. Art Austin Franklin wrote: T-Max 100 has a resolution rating of around 200 line pair/mm, that's over 10k samples per inch, and would be a file of APPROXIMATELY FOR EXAMPLE SAKE (since you are being anal about arithmetic ;-) ~10k x ~15k or ~150M pixels. Austin The term Austin is looking for is anally retentive Er, Arthur, I wasn't looking for any term. I used the term I wanted. The common understanding, except for those who ARE really anal, is that when someone says anal they are abbreviating the term anal(ly) retentive. What was your supposed point, BTW? Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Shoot the Messenger
Bob, You're a saint, thankyou. I had another freeze this morning with only Outlook Express open. I'm hoping turning off Micro Messenger will help. Dave - Original Message - From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 4:56 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: Shoot the Messenger Dave, I'm now back at my XP computer, and if I run Messenger from Programs, and click on Tools/Preferences, there is a checkbox that says Start with Windows. I unchecked that and Messenger does not run now unless I click on it in Programs. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: Shoot the Messenger Hummm, Well I ran the sfc /scannow command (thanks, that's a new one on me) and it finished and closed with no discernable flags or messages, so I tried your original suggestion again (again checking syntax carefully) and got the same error message as before. The system BTW is still stable on day three post Sys Mech registry repair (and still knocking wood), so besides the slight inconvenience of longer boot time I'm not sure this is worth messing with further? I'll let you be the judge of that Cary, and I appreciate your effort to this point:) 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: OT: Shoot the Messenger
Hummm, Well I ran the sfc /scannow command (thanks, that's a new one on me) and it finished and closed with no discernable flags or messages, so I tried your original suggestion again (again checking syntax carefully) and got the same error message as before. The system BTW is still stable on day three post Sys Mech registry repair (and still knocking wood), so besides the slight inconvenience of longer boot time I'm not sure this is worth messing with further? I'll let you be the judge of that Cary, and I appreciate your effort to this point:) Dave - Original Message - From: Cary Enoch R... aka Enoch's Vision, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:21 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: Shoot the Messenger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave King Haven't gone to the registry yet, but following the run dialog route got this error message (cases/spaces may be wrong): Error in Advpack.dll Missing entry:LaunchINFsectionC:\windows\INF\msmsgs.INF,BLC.Remove The spacing must be exactly as shown in my original message. If that still doesn't work then the error message suggests a corrupted Windows file. Run sfc /scannow (without the quotes) from a Command Windows or the Run dialog to see if that's the case. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com -- Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell 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: OT: which wintel OS for digital imaging?
2K by a mile. - Original Message - From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm running a Polaroid SS4000 as my scanner utilize Insight, Vuescan and PS6 in my workflow. I'm planning to update my wintel box and need to choose between Win2K WinXP. Which should I choose? Thanks, JimD Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120
A big advantage to the SS120 -- depth of focus!! If it doesn't have to be perfectly flat, don't fix it if it ain't broke:) Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:54 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120 Chris How do you find the film flatness in the MF holder? It does not look flat to me although the images seem to be in focus. I seem to try a few times to get a strip to lay flat. Any tips? It is also impossible to scan every frame on a four frame strip. I like the 120 although the film flatness of the MF is an issue. Simon On 20/4/02 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? It does. Or is supposed to; my first SS120 didn't have one (the machine was returned due to other reasons) and second also didn't. So both times I had to call the retailer - who got Polaroid to send one out. The first slide they sent looked liked it had been dragged across a floor under someone's foot - but both the retailer and Polaroid sorted everything out. Took a few days - so the moral of all this? Check the box/contents before driving the 3 hour journey home. Craig Auckland | Photographer 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: my XP laptop is driving me crazy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] because I'm using it for scanning until I can get the desktop upgraded. Actually, scanning isn't the problem (the processor is an Athalon 1.2 gig), but Photoshop keeps crashing when running big files. RAM is maxed out at 512 gig assume you mean .5GB, 512MB You got PhotoShop RAM use set to 75% or less of total RAM? Giving it 100% can cause crashes, not enough left for OS and etc. At 75% now. I have Photoshop's scratch disk pointed to an external firewire drive with lots of room. Does it crash if you just leave scratch disk set to internal HD? Yeah, I know it *should* work ok, but... That's a good suggestion, I'll try it and see. Thanks. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] LS-8000 glass holders, was My Public Apology
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes. It greatly improves the focus, but I have to blow a hurricane of compressed air over the carrier and film to try to keep them clean, and as you can see, I'm still getting interference. These rings don't look like dust, though--more like a slight flexing of the film, or something. I'm open to suggestions on how to get rid of this. The glass carrier for the 8000ED already contains anti-newton glass, and I blow everything clean over and over. Looking at the LS-8000 help files it appears only the single frame rotating glass holder comes with overlay spacers? As I work with the LS-8000 I see the DOF is indeed limited as others have noted, and think the glass holder is a good accessory for critical scans, but the damn thing retails for $350:( Making spacers isn't difficult (black craft paper is sufficient), and it keeps contact pressure low where (and if) the base side touches glass. This review goes into some detail about the holders and use: http://www.naturfotograf.com/LS8000ED_review.html Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] bringing out shadow detail in 16 bit, was My Public Apology
In 16 bit run a curves correction for the shadows as desired, ignoring the rest of the image. Use history brush to paint this curve state into the shadows of the previous state using a medium fuzzy brush at 100%. Dave - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] For an example of a recent scan, see http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/images/EiffelInvalidesPaper1600x1200.jpg This is a scan of a Velvia 6x6 transparency, ICE set to normal, no GEM or ROC, no other adjustments, and then tweaked in Photoshop (slight adjustments to levels). There is more detail in the shadows than you see in this image, but I couldn't find a way to drag it out without blowing out the brighter parts of the image, and Photoshop won't let me do much in the way of selective masking in 16-bit mode. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120(comments verywelcome please)
I said previously: A CCD scanner will not read the deepest shadows of transparency film Well, I may have to eat my words here. I've spent the evening testing the LS-8000 using some of the chromes that have given me fits in the past. One slide in particular that I had to use the two scans and combine in Photoshop trick, the LS-8000 sailed through with flying colors. I made three scans, all with ICE and the same curves correction: 1x multi sample, 8 bit, 3 CCD, 4x multi sample, 8 bit, 1 CCD, and 4x multi sample, 1 CCD, 14 bit. The correction was pretty extreme, to lighten and then add compensating shadow contrast using both curves and LCH editor (lightness channel). The first scan had major banding (it was a big band), so Nikon's statements that banding increases with increasing contrast edits is definitely true. The second had no banding, and was good enough really, so I wasn't expecting any improvement in the third hi-bit scan. After all, Nikonscan processes the correction in hi bit before saving to disk, right? I was surprised to see that the hi bit scan was considerably better in the shadows than the 8 bit scan, as shadow transitions were much smoother and there was more detail. In fact, on the 14 bit scan there was shadow detail I can't see on the #$%@ light table! This is a first in my experience. Perhaps I could see it if I masked the chrome off (on the light table), but I didn't bother, I was convinced already. Scan times go way up with all the goodies dialed in, so they'll only get use as necessary, but it's still a hell of a lot less time than I spent hunched over in front of the monitor scanning this image before, and this time I was on the sofa catching the news while the scanner whirred away. All of the scans I did need very little or no post processing in Photoshop. Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120 (comments verywelcome please)
I agree with your current observations except I find Insight to reproduce any color transparency I have tried pretty well. Also, the 35mm strip holder has sprocket hole tabs movable by the film position slider, enabling the film to be positioned side to side with little effort. After closing the top piece you have to gently bracket the film position slider until the tabs fall into the sprocket holes. Perhaps you've already done this and still find it fiddly, but I was satisfied with this mechanism. The price reduction of the Flextight Photo certainly makes it viable, and you may want to consider the Nikon LS-8000 as well. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be welcome. I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results. The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS. As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100 and Delta 400 I gave up. The scans where very dark, the black point stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end had been pushed up against a wall. So, I moved on to using Vuescan. The Provia scanned well although the colour accuracy was not too good. My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as detailed. The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail. The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights. The Porta 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling all over the scan. I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has difficulty with the Portra emulsion. A shame, since my LS30 scans it very well. So where am I now. Well, the SS 120 can obviously produce detailed scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them, especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work. I am not really happy about relying on third party software because should Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be difficult to get the results I need. The carriers are fiddly. In many cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier slightly undone. Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted, and some were just too far out to be workable. I think I will return the SS 120 and try the Flextight Photo. I did find when comparing it side by side with the SS 120 in the store that the Photo just about always reproduced the image as near as possible to the original colour, contrast etc. The built in film profiles seemed to be accurate. It may take twice as long to scan, but I may save that additional time not having to do so much in Photoshop. Your comments on my findings would be welcomed. I know a lot of people use the SS 120, so either I am doing something wrong or they just put the effort in to correct images post scanning. I was using Insight 5.5.1. Regards. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!
It appears to me so far that it also doesn't run in original Win98 (not SE). Dave - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:39 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Oh, that hurts. I run it on ordinary Win98SE, and the friend of mine works with it in Win2000. However, if your system running WinNT and the software wasn't designed to work under this OS, that is disappointing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro! Alex writes: I was wondering why people continue to complain heavily about Nikon Scan after ver. 3.1.2 became available. Version 3.x doesn't run on some versions of Windows (e.g., NT). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] LS-8000 on Win98?
I wonder if anyone else has dealt with this: the included firewire card did not include drivers. There's a driver updater on the Nikonscan 3 install CD, but only for Win 98 SE, and I'm still running 98 orig ver. I found a Firewarden driver online at http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/ but it didn't seem to integrate with the OS properly, and the NS3 install disk would still not let me proceed saying the driver needed updating first. This may be the time to upgrade the OS to Win2K, or does anyone have an easier suggestion? Thanks, Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users
Yep, easy as pie. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users Dave Do you use the SS 120 with Vuescan. Is it just a case of plug it in and Vuescan will find it, as it does with my LS30? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users
I hope the store has their monitor calibrated so you can judge the accuracy of the scan's colors. If you buy the SS120 you may find yourself using Insight for chromes and Silverfast or Vuescan for negs. Vuescan can easily be set up to bring in conservative end points for later editing in Photoshop, and the film terms for color negs are among the best I've seen. For critical work I wouldn't be happy using a scan driver that always clipped the end points at some preset value. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 3:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users Interesting. I will try again tomorrow and use their copy of Insight. I also found that when I scanned a Delta 100 6X6 neg. the histogram showed everything moved towards the black end. There was a loss of detail and the histogram ended sharply at the black end as it everything had been pushed against a wall. I think I need more practice with the SS120 but it is difficult at the dealer. I think I will ask if I can rent it out for a weekend. Thanks for your reply. Simon On 11/4/02 8:03 pm, Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is Insight 5.5 would be better based on the result of your current test, but my experience with Silverfast is limited to a few quick tests. My impression is Silverfast can be quite accurate if you go to the trouble of making a custom profile for it with an IT-8 target. But I do find Insight 5.5 gets the colors of the chrome right on the nose with both the SS4000 and SS120. The end points come in on the conservative side, which I prefer, and a simple tone curve to set end points and lift gamma a bit gets the scan dialed in from there. I do the tone correction first, then convert the file to 8 bit RGB. I set Insight up so that monitor space and output profile (or whatever they call it) are Adobe RGB 98 (my working space), and then the scan preview matches the Photoshop view very accurately, so basic prescan color and tone correction in Insight is possible. For some reason however, when a working space is used with Insight the curves feature is turned off, so the prescan corrections have to be kept pretty basic, but they would still be useful for production work. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users I was using the Photoshop plug of Silverfast Ai 5. Would Insight be better? I could not of course test out Vuescan which I use with my LS30. Simon - Original Message - From: Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 6:05 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions for current users The short answer is you will have to some basic tweaking in Photoshop if you use Insight 5.5 with the most recent transparency profile. It comes in with accurate color, but a little flat. Many chromes you don't want an exact color reproduction anyway, considering film's color distortions of lens output. Hey it's film you're looking at, not lens output:) But in my experience the colors are true to the chrome at Insight's no adjustment settings, and I would think you could save a standard tone curve for production work. Color negs are an entirely different story. Insight hypes colors, and crossovers abound. Vuescan is considerably better, but I find I often still have to work with relatively minor crossovers quite a bit in Photoshop to get a great final. But since it doesn't start out hyped it's at least possible to get there. The little bit I've worked with Insight for negs my impression was impossible. For production work with color negs you'd be better off with Nikonscan or the Imacon software. (Haven't used the Imacon software, going by what I've heard.) My .02 Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:11 PM Subject: [filmscanners] SS 120 questions for current users I just spent three hours with an SS 120 and the Imacon Photo. The only major difference that I found was in the colour fidelity when scanning slides, in this case Kodak E100VS 6X6 slides. Whereas the Imacon representation of the slide was spot on in colour reproduction, the SS 120 was more washed out and the saturation had been lost. Other than that it seemed to be an excellent unit, not as good as the Imacon in the final scans (the Imacon seemed to show more detail and smoother transitions even though it was working at 3200dpi and not 4000dpi. Have any of you current SS 120 users notices colours not being reproduced correctly and have you managed to fix this easily using the scanner software? Or am I going to need to do a lot of colour manipulation in Photoshop? Sorry to keep
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
The current 4000 dpi Polaroid scanners (in my opinion) are about as good as CCD scanners get. I scan Kodachromes frequently with my (elderly) SS4000 and get all the shadow detail I see on the light table, with very little noise. A drum scan may be a bit more open at the bottom, but the Polaroid does get all the detail, and a little Photoshop work brings it up where you want it. If you're scanning your own film and it's reasonably well stored and cared for, ICE is of questionable benefit. If you're scanning old film that's been attacked by fungus, or has been stored carelessly, ICE is a miracle worker. That excludes Kodachrome work unfortunately since ICE doesn't work well with BW or Kodachrome. That eliminates the Nikon scanners for my purposes. The latest version of Insight Pro is great with chromes, still only so-so with negs. I use Vuescan for negs and Insight for chromes. Silverfast is still hobbled with 8-bit output and a silly overly complex interface. It has potential, but not quite there yet as far as I'm concerned. Dave - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000 Hi folks, After problems with 2 separate Minolta Elite IIs (which I won't bother repeating in this post), I'm contemplating jumping ship and going for either for a Nikon LS-40 or a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (some dealers here in the UK are still advertising it). In my price range, these seem to be the best 2 scanners. (The Canon FS4000 appears to have poor shadow performance and I've had enough of this with the Elite II.) I'm attracted by the extra resolution, low shadow noise, good depth of field and SCSI interface of the SS4000 (and Polaroids general customer service) but I have found ICE invaluable at times. Also, the SS4000 is now quite elderly in scanner terms. Has anyone had direct experience of both these scanners, preferably on dense slides like Kodachrome? Thanks, Al Bond 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: Polaroid PolaColor Insight 5.5.1
Upon installation it gives you options to add driver components as needed for SS4000, SS4000+, SS120, and SS45 Ultra. The upgrade is worth having (it's really good with transparencies especially), and the final version fixes a bug with right click context sensitive menus. Dave From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found the new version (5.5) listed and downloadable as Sprintscan 4000 software. So it is available for both the 4000 and the 4000plus. On 3/14/02 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hemingway, David J) Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The latest version of PolaColor Insight has been posted to http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/sprintscan/ss4kplus.html The updater is ONLY for those who purchased a 4000 Plus. The included CD had a bug which the updater fixes. David -Original Message- From: Mehrdad Sadat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:59 PM To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: for david Hemingway david, when is the next version of the software available? --- Regards, Mehrdad Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
It sounds like you're confusing chrome and neg scan capability using CCD scanners. Seeing all the dynamic range in color neg shadows is cake for nearly any scanner, as this is the part of the film with least density above film base plus fog. I will disagree with your assessment of the LS-30 and Vuescan after owning that scanner for a few years. With color negs particularly Vuescan blows away what you can get with concurrent versions of NikonScan in terms of tone scale accuracy (in the shadows particularly), and in the absence of NikonScan's famous jaggies. In terms of real world results, particularly if looking at resulting prints, I would put the lowly LS-30 up against better scanners with inferior software if one stays within the resolution limits imposed by the LS-30, and expect better results. More than once I've heard knowledgeable folks say the software is more important than the scanner (within reasonable limits). Apparently Flextight has sharpening at the default settings. Regarding edge to edge sharpness, there are less expensive ways to get film flat for scanning than buying a Flextight. Please note I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Flextight scanners beyond the disadvantageous price/performance ratios. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:20 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK Dave I accept that the software can assist in pulling more information out of a negative but if the scanner does not have the capability in the hardware to read it then it isn't going to materialise in the output scan file. I doubt that Vuescan will ever get my lowly LS30 to perform better than it does now, and it will never meet the level of the Flextight, SS120, MDSMP or Nikon 8000. I have seen the review of the MDSMP where a scan showed a lot of noise in a particularly dark part of the scan. 16x multisampling erradicated most of it although there was visible banding. Simon Dave King wrote: I didn't say edge to edge sharpness is a software issue, but shadow detail and noise in color negs scans certainly is. That is the part of the neg that is the easiest for the hardware to deal with. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK That is not so Dave. Edge to edge sharpness is not a software issue, it is a film flatness issue in the scaner, and an area where the curving of the film in the Flextight helps greatly. Shadow detail, and particularly noise in teh shadow detail, is not a software issue, it is an issue of how the scanning light source and hardware create the noise and accentuate grain. The depth of detail extracted from the shadow areas is not a software issue (altough software can help) but also to do with the Dmax of the scanner. Colour and clarity can also be assisted using Vuwscan, but the scanner has to be able to record them reasonably accurately in the first place. I am confident that Vuescan will not help to resolve some of these issue, particularly edge to edge sharpness. I use Vuescan all the time and will try and re-do my comparison using it with the SS120 and MSMP. Simon Dave King wrpte: When you're scanning color negs software is the determining factor in all the parameters you mention except detail resolution. I don't know how much the price of the Flextight has fallen, but those using the other scanners you mention can take heart in the fact that Vuescan exists. David Lewiston wrote: Simon To answer my own question about 'how much scanner?'... Just did another websearch on Imacon. At the Luminous Landscape site I found the following entry for Oct 24, 2001: At the beginning of this month Imacon announced that they had reduced the price of the Imacon Flextight Photo to US$6,495 from its original price of $9,995. I have just been informed that Imacon is currently offering a limited-time US$1,500 mail-in rebate which effectively reduces the net cost to the end-user to $4,995. It seems to be the Flextight 1, which does 35mm only at a resolution of 3,200 dpi, about half the resolution of its big brother. David It is indeed the Flextight Photo. I used this in the dealer to scan a 35mm and 6x6 neg on a Sprintscan 120, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and the Flextight Photo. At 3200 dpi and with a Dmax of 4.1 the Flextight blew the others away with far superior scans in detail (shadow and highlight), clarity, colour, edge to edge sharpness etc. etc. I will be getting my one on Monday :-) Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I accept that the software can assist in pulling more information out of a negative Simon Boy, do I disagree with that... How on earth can software pull more information out of a negative, aside from the control of the light source and the analog gain stage prior to the A/D? Those aren't software issues, but operator or firmware/calibration issues. Austin The problem is calibration settings may appear to be available in many of the prosumer sofware packages, but irreversable clipping and tone scale truncations still occur. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Preben wrote: --- I have been very happy with Polaroid's SS4000 - scanned 11.000 slides so far - but there are, fairly frequently, moments where a polarized, dark blue sky on a Velvia comes out a mess - and I wish for an Imacon, somehow hoping that it could solve the problem. I tried the SS120, which I think is a very good scanner if you do medium format, but I did not see any improvement - worth the investment - of my 35 mm scans of troublesome slides. --- Don't mean to beat the horse too much, but isn't this also a pretty typical software/color management issue? I would guess Vuescan and well sorted CM would solve this problem. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: New price on Flextight Photo in UK Hi Dave, Calibration settings is the wrong term. What I meant is the software interface leads one to think there is enough control over tone range that clipping and compressions that can't be reversed are avoidable, and is really not a hardware issue at all AFAIK. If I understand what it is you are talking about, that is neither a software OR a hardware issue. It is a bit depth issue, as well as an operator understanding issue. You should NOT be doing tonal moves with grayscale in 8 bits, but you can get away with doing moves in an 8 bit space with color, since 8 bit color is really 24 bits ALL tonal moves in grayscale must be done in high bit mode, or you will drop codes (get combing in your histogram, and possibly get posterization). Is that what you were talking about? Regards, Austin - Close to what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is even though many scan drivers let you think you have the ability to set end points they still clip. And even though they are presumably doing hi-bit raw file processing, there are still compression tragedies occurring in shadow tonalities, resulting in the sort of posterized and crummy looking shadows that Simon Lamb was seeing and talking about at the very beginning of this thread. Color crossovers are also a fairly common problem IME. One solution is to edit raw scans, or easier, use a software driver that allows lower contrast results, and uses good enough film terms. Part of VueScan's quality secret may be use of the color neg film terms developed by Kodak for Pro Photo CD. Pro Photo CD scans of color negs are among the best I've seen, particularly in conjunction with PS 6's improvements to Photo CD handling. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
I didn't say edge to edge sharpness is a software issue, but shadow detail and noise in color negs scans certainly is. That is the part of the neg that is the easiest for the hardware to deal with. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK That is not so Dave. Edge to edge sharpness is not a software issue, it is a film flatness issue in the scaner, and an area where the curving of the film in the Flextight helps greatly. Shadow detail, and particularly noise in teh shadow detail, is not a software issue, it is an issue of how the scanning light source and hardware create the noise and accentuate grain. The depth of detail extracted from the shadow areas is not a software issue (altough software can help) but also to do with the Dmax of the scanner. Colour and clarity can also be assisted using Vuwscan, but the scanner has to be able to record them reasonably accurately in the first place. I am confident that Vuescan will not help to resolve some of these issue, particularly edge to edge sharpness. I use Vuescan all the time and will try and re-do my comparison using it with the SS120 and MSMP. Simon Dave King wrpte: When you're scanning color negs software is the determining factor in all the parameters you mention except detail resolution. I don't know how much the price of the Flextight has fallen, but those using the other scanners you mention can take heart in the fact that Vuescan exists. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK David Lewiston wrote: Simon To answer my own question about 'how much scanner?'... Just did another websearch on Imacon. At the Luminous Landscape site I found the following entry for Oct 24, 2001: At the beginning of this month Imacon announced that they had reduced the price of the Imacon Flextight Photo to US$6,495 from its original price of $9,995. I have just been informed that Imacon is currently offering a limited-time US$1,500 mail-in rebate which effectively reduces the net cost to the end-user to $4,995. It seems to be the Flextight 1, which does 35mm only at a resolution of 3,200 dpi, about half the resolution of its big brother. David It is indeed the Flextight Photo. I used this in the dealer to scan a 35mm and 6x6 neg on a Sprintscan 120, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and the Flextight Photo. At 3200 dpi and with a Dmax of 4.1 the Flextight blew the others away with far superior scans in detail (shadow and highlight), clarity, colour, edge to edge sharpness etc. etc. I will be getting my one on Monday :-) Simon -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
Vuescans advantages over most software (haven't used Flextight's, but hear it's superb) has to do with the fact you can bring a scan into photoshop somewhere between raw and final, enabling difficult shadow transition edits that are far superior to most other software I've tried. It combines the qualities of editing raw files with the convenience of CM and good film terms Dave - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:35 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:08:16 - Simon! I think you have done a good conclusion here. If you go back in the mailing list you found what I have been written about film flatness problems . I did last summer a test with my own 3 scanners LS2000. LS4000 and Polaroid 35+ against Imacon Photo. None of them could match the Imacon scanner in sharpness and Dmax. Comparing a picture from LS4000 and Imacon Photo , the Nikon LS 4000 picture are so inferior to the Imacon that I recommend Nikon to rebuild and improve the scanner before they are selling this crap. Last week I did a new scanner test who shows that also a Minolta Elite 2 scanner at 2800ppi outperformed my LS4000 regarding over all sharpness. The Minolta scanner cost about the half price of a Nikon LS 4000 scanner. , Nikonscan , Silverfast and now Vuescan allows us to decide focus point manually. This helps a little bit against curved film problem but not 100% The depth of field are still to short in the LS4000 and LS 2000 scanner construction. Some people believes that Vuescan are doing something else that Nikonscan or Silverfast or other scanner software's not are capable to do. All software's are working in a similar way regarding calculation of a picture. The Imacons software and scanners are outstanding regarding all parameters and counts to the semi or high end destop scanners leuge.The rest are still mid end scanners. Mikael Risedal That is not so Dave. Edge to edge sharpness is not a software issue, it is a film flatness issue in the scaner, and an area where the curving of the film in the Flextight helps greatly. Shadow detail, and particularly noise in teh shadow detail, is not a software issue, it is an issue of how the scanning light source and hardware create the noise and accentuate grain. The depth of detail extracted from the shadow areas is not a software issue (altough software can help) but also to do with the Dmax of the scanner. Colour and clarity can also be assisted using Vuwscan, but the scanner has to be able to record them reasonably accurately in the first place. I am confident that Vuescan will not help to resolve some of these issue, particularly edge to edge sharpness. I use Vuescan all the time and will try and re-do my comparison using it with the SS120 and MSMP. Simon Dave King wrpte: When you're scanning color negs software is the determining factor in all the parameters you mention except detail resolution. I don't know how much the price of the Flextight has fallen, but those using the other scanners you mention can take heart in the fact that Vuescan exists. Dave - Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK David Lewiston wrote: Simon To answer my own question about 'how much scanner?'... Just did another websearch on Imacon. At the Luminous Landscape site I found the following entry for Oct 24, 2001: At the beginning of this month Imacon announced that they had reduced the price of the Imacon Flextight Photo to US$6,495 from its original price of $9,995. I have just been informed that Imacon is currently offering a limited-time US$1,500 mail-in rebate which effectively reduces the net cost to the end-user to $4,995. It seems to be the Flextight 1, which does 35mm only at a resolution of 3,200 dpi, about half the resolution of its big brother. David It is indeed the Flextight Photo. I used this in the dealer to scan a 35mm and 6x6 neg on a Sprintscan 120, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and the Flextight Photo. At 3200 dpi and with a Dmax of 4.1 the Flextight blew the others away with far superior scans in detail (shadow and highlight), clarity, colour, edge to edge sharpness etc. etc. I will be getting my one on Monday :-) Simon -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flattening negatives
First advice is go to a better lab:) That's not a normal result. If you can tape the film edges in the carrier that's one way. Otherwise about all you can do that doesn't risk damage is to flatten with weight and wait, or get a glass carrier. Dave - Original Message - From: Edward P. Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 9:56 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Flattening negatives Any good tips for flattening negatives before you scan them? When I get negatives back from the lab, they have a pronounced side to side curl that makes loading theming to the scanner a problem, much less getting good edge to edge resolution. Pre-flattening seems a much better option than glass carriers or new scanners. Thanks! Ed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: cdrw drives
Don't all CEO's do that these days:( Dave - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 2:15 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: cdrw drives Funny you should mention Smart Friendly. They are out of business, seems their CEO ran off with millions. David -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: cdrw drives Speaking of off brand units...I'd heard great things years ago about Smart and Friendly. I believe they won the PC Magazine shoot-out a number of years ago...and I have no idea what they are doing today. I know when I was on staff at one of the top PC manufacturers (at the time) they were suitably impressed with those units, and strongly considering using them in their products. Austin I have had very good results with several of the Liteon 12x and 24x CDRW drives.. Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a good review of the quite cheap 24W speed Liteon unit at http://www.storagereview.com/ . It also mentions that Dell uses them - so I don't think they will be too unreliable. Steve Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Finally, I can talk about the SS4000+ (LONG)
I'd like to know the answer to this too. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a new version of Insight that will work with the former SS4000? Is it out of Beta yet? I have tried to look for Insight updates on the Polaroid site, but I seem to lack the roadmap for finding them. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: The weakest link
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Kent I concur... Definitely do not skimp on the scanner. While a high end scanner cannot guarantee the best output, it should give you the best image to start with. Just make sure that every piece of equipment in your workflow is correctly color managed, and you should be fine. Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find in my own case that the weakest link is the scanner operator. Cary speaks with wisdom. Skill and sensibility is the most important part of the equation. It's not the camera, it's the photographer still applies! Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CRTs vs LCDs
Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: I was thinking further about this today and realized I don't know what the bias adjustment does. Many monitors only have gain controls, and so now I'm wondering how bias is different than gain, how it's used during calibration, and the advantages (?) for color critical work. Thanks, Dave Well, tech speaking about gain and bias: Say, you have an input X on monitor Your output will be Y = mX + b. Where m is the gain and b the bias aka offset. So what you see on screen (Y) is the signal (X) that comes from video card multiplied by gain (m) and added with b (offset or bias). In a perfect monitor you would have something like m= 1 and b = 0 so that the signal displayed by monitor is the same as the one that comes from the video card. But as monitors age they need to be recalibrated to show the desired signal so the need for the gain and bias. Hope I was clear and helped, Nuno Sebastião Well, I was satisfied by Julian's answer, it was easy and practical. But your answer has me wondering again about what is actually happening at the circuit level. I guess they are voltage amplifiers operating at different frequencies? Presumably the gain control isn't particularly critical in real world terms for color correcting work (all I really care about), but I wonder why. Thanks, Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CRTs vs LCDs
Dave asked: Well, I was satisfied by Julian's answer, it was easy and practical. But your answer has me wondering again about what is actually happening at the circuit level. I guess they are voltage amplifiers operating at different frequencies? Presumably the gain control isn't particularly critical in real world terms for color correcting work (all I really care about), but I wonder why. The bias controls (three, one for each colour) in effect adjust a voltage on one of the CRT electrodes to give individual brightness adjustment of each colour. They are set to give neutral blacks. The gain controls (again, one for each colour) set the gain of the video amps in the monitor and are adjusted to give neutral whites. With luck, or a good quality monitor, all the grey levels are also neutral, but if not, that is where a utility such as Adobe Gamma comes in. Both white and black settings are important for colour correcting work Dave, perhaps the black setting being the more ctitical one. Colin Maddock That's helpful, thanks. I misspoke in my earlier comment, I meant to say *bias* (not gain) is presumably not particularly important since ColorVision said something to that effect to Julian. Quote from Julian: I asked about the bias controls, and I was told to leave them at the factory settings. But you seem to be saying that the bias setting is more critical than the gain setting. So if you and ColorVision are both correct, then factory setting for bias is fine to use, and presumably there isn't as much drift here because phosphor aging isn't an issue in the black tones? Thanks again, Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CRTs vs LCDs
Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: I'm assuming you researched the CRT situation before buying the Sony GMD-F520. Do you know if it has individually adjustable guns? Julian Vrieslander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Individually adjustable gain and bias for each gun. I was thinking further about this today and realized I don't know what the bias adjustment does. Many monitors only have gain controls, and so now I'm wondering how bias is different than gain, how it's used during calibration, and the advantages (?) for color critical work. Thanks, Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Building PCs ... the RAM.
Please keep this topic on list! It's of very high relevance IMHO, and those who say not can just skip this thread. Fair enough? Thanks, Dave King - Original Message - From: Ezio c/o TIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Building PCs ... the RAM. Please, some good soul can explain to me ... why I should buy expensive DDR RAM in huge quantity (mass RAM is going to be 512MB or 1GB ... on my system very soon) ... when the bandwidth of MEMORY BUS is always the same e.g. on Asus A7V266 = 2.1GB/s ??? This bandwidth is not saturated by any type of currently available memory and I strongly doubt the system is going to use all of it ... so why to pay the difference ? Just a matter of having a learning attitude :o) ... P.S.: please send answers OFF LIST ... not to bother the colleagues / friends. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 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] Agfa T-2500 maintenence
I'm wondering if it's advisable to clean the light path from time to time, and if so how big a PITA it is. Anyone had one of these apart (or the ArtixScan equivalent)? Is there a service manual available? TIA, Dave King Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
- Original Message - From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:52 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Being endlessly interested in contrast taming, I just tried this but obviously I am missing something because I can't get it to work. I certainly don't understand how it works, mostly because I don't know what screen does :( Is the technique assuming the dark or light image on top, or doesn't it matter? It does remind me though of the other semi-automatic way of improving high contrast images which works quite well, although if overused gives some strange effects on the light-dark transitions and at the edge of image. Contrast masking... - Image needs to be in 8-bit which is a shame. - duplicate it into a second layer - desaturate top layer and invert (make it a negative of itself) - select OVERLAY as mode - gaussian blur this top layer to 20-70pixels until you get the best effect - reduce the effect if necessary by reducing transparency of top layer Julian I love this technique for contrasty chromes (never need it for negs with Vuescan), but I question the need for the gaussian blur part. The digital contrast mask is an exact pixel for pixel overlay, and old school film contrast masks were made out of focus to compensate for dimensional instability between film and mask layers not an issue with digital. So another way to do this is no blur and much lower transparency on CRM layer. 20 to 40 percent is all you can do without a blur, but IMO looks better than using blur. The contrast reducing effect moves faster but with more precision in final result. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan Suggestions Needed
Yep, I'm happy bringing a flat hi-bit Vuescan into PS to do final color/tone correction. I set up Vuescan to get all the tones the scanner can get, and then I use the shift up/down arrow trick to dial in the final correction. It's very helpful and shows you where things are at quickly. I also like to use the color balance feature using the shift up/down technique. I start with shadows and try up and down on every color, then highlights, and last midtones. With a calibrated monitor this shows quickly where corrections may still be needed, and then if you want you can implement what you've just learned with a curve and still protect highlight detail. The interesting thing is a hi-bit Vuescan with final corrections in Photoshop is a better starting point than any other scan driver I've used in terms of natural color and accuracy. Something about the intrinsic accuracy of Vuescan? Dave - Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:38 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: VueScan Suggestions Needed The Photoshop approach is addictive: up/down arrow increments by one unit shift held down at the same time increments by 10 units. mouse-wheel up down is synonymous with up/down arrow (sorry Mac users, you're *really* missing out with no wheel on your mouse...) Sliders become much less interesting, then. They can retain their function as gross manipulators. Jawed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Silverfast vs. Vuescan
Bottom line here is: we all have our opinions and the perfect scanner software hasn't been written yet. I agree completely. SilverFast is a nice product, and the engineers at LaserSoft are quite good. Regards, Ed Hamrick But they're not on this list every day helping end users find good quick solutions like you. That, and the ease of purchase and use of Vuescan say volumes. You're a classy guy Ed. I hear Silverfast is capable of accurate results, but I've been too discouraged by it's complexity and lack of hi-bit output to pursue it to the point of finding out for myself. Vuescan's accuracy is what I value most about it, next would have to be ease of use. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Agfa woes - Epson 2450
- Original Message - From: Ian Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some one should clue Silverfast in that it's a new day. WE have and they listen and they are slowly actioning the necessary modifications - just you haven't been watching :-0 BTW: SilverFast operates on the high bit data and has more features available in that mode than Photoshop - it just doesn't allow you to output the fully edited image in 48bit mode - YET! Yer right about watching - not enough time to do it all:) I'll grant Silverfast set-up with proper color management could have some advantage over the hi-bit to Photoshop workflow. But I'll be more interested in Silverfast when it can output hi-bit also. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
- Original Message - From: Lloyd O'Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can give you my opinion on part of this comparison. I have a SS4000, bought 2 years ago at $1425. A friend of mine recently purchased a SS120. I scanned a couple of 35mm slides on his 120 that I had previously scanned on my 4000. My 4000 scans look great, but the 120 scans shows significantly greater detail in highlights and shadows. The dynamic range numbers published by Polaroid seem to be accurate. The fact you're getting better highlight detail says to me that your aren't scanning using the same settings (which I would think is easiest to do in Vuescan), and so comparing apples to oranges. Frankly, I'm a bit miffed at Polaroid for the manner they have handled the 4000/4000+ situation. I am assuming that the 4000+ will have dynamic range similar to that of the 120. Had Polaroid chosen to market the 4000+ concurrently with the 4000 at a time when one could have obtained a reasonable resale value on the 4000, I would have upgraded to get the higher DR. Instead, they have dumped 4000's on the market for $500 net or so for 6 months, making my scanner virtually worthless. There is no way I can spring $1500 on a plus now. Polaroid loses a sale. They also haven't had a 35mm scanner they can get $1500 for lately. I would think they need the cash. I would say that they deserve their current financial situation in this regard. Two comments, welcome to the wonderful world of digital:), and Polaroid is under the gun to generate cash flow. Can't really blame them for trying to stay alive can you? In hindsight, I would have been better off to have upgraded to a Nikon 4000ED before the legs were cut off the SS4000. I did think of doing this. Poor performance ratings of the Nikon 14-bit scanner vis a vis dynamic range dissuaded me from doing this. Yes, and there are some who have said the old SS4000 you still own is better than the new Nikon regarding dynamic range and film plane DOF. I'm not sure an upgrade would really get you better scans. Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS120: Reflections on edge of neg
Rob Geraghty wrote: Wouldn't you need something matte - like a black matte paint for plastic models? Magic marker ink might not take enough shine out of the plastic. Yeah, maybe. But a few years ago when I had this problem with 4x5 film (I had a reflection about 1/4 into the film on the left side), the magic marker method worked. I'm starting to have it again with a couple of holders and I'm going to try it again. Barbara Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com Magic marker should be adequate if the reflective area isn't smooth. A little roughing up with fine grit sandpaper (or even a nail file) would do the trick. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs
Film grain. You don't say how big this sample would be. For example, if the entire frame was 6x9 at 300dpi? NPS 160 has bigger grain when scanned than it should. Fujicolor 800 is about the same! I have found that to be true on an Agfa T-2500, Nikon LS-30, and a Polaroid SS4000. May be aliasing. I don't use Portra, but I hear it's scans with smaller grain. Dave - Original Message - From: Craig Auckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 problems - negs HI I brought the sprintscan just over a week ago and have had problems scanning negs - they seem to display quite visible noise; I think this is a scanner problem but wanted to confirm. As with most problems it is best to view for yourselves so if possible please look at http://www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk/sprintscan.html The image is a section of a 6x9 NPS neg (about 500k); a variety of negs display a similar fault, as do using various software packages (silverfast, vuescan etc) I need to know whether anyone else has seen this problem, especially people also using the sprintscan 120. Thanks in advance for your help Regards, Craig ___ Craig Auckland | Photographer Tel: +44 (0)7930 337 226 Fax: +44 (0)7931 607 428 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: www.aucklandphotographer.co.uk ___ providing images of the built environment
RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor insharpness?
I think this is not necessarily true any longer. The main point I'll make is the better CCD scanners can cover the entire density range of a color neg with adequate resolution to capture all the image detail in most photographs, even those produced by expert photographers. There are exceptions to this, but in general, for scanning color negs, it's safe to say going to a drum will not result in an appreciably better scan other things being equal (operator experience for example). In fact, the opportunity for experts to make critical decisions during scanning may result in higher quality scans. Nancy Scans do excellent work judging by what I've seen, and getting to that level of expertise for the average photographer isn't necessarily easy, but it is possible. Software is also extremely important in scan quality, and Vuescan has the most accurate color neg conversions I've seen so far. Thank God (and Ed:) for small favors. If the scanner will cover the entire density range of the film, and resolution is adequate, and the software and operator are adequate, there is no reason CCD scanning cannot equal or better drums. We are at that point of parity with color negs since the advent of such CCD scanners as the Flextight and even the better 35mm prosumer units, and it's getting less expensive as time goes on also. Dave King - Original Message - From: John Straus [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor insharpness? Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using are the best it will get or the best that is out there. If you have an image that is that good get a drum scan from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere. If your output only needs to be average then you can settle for average input (photographic lenses). In the long run we are still far away from maximizing what is scanned from what is on the slide or negative especially with the consumer scanners were using. I am not saying you can't get good results and sell work using these scanners but lenses and film are more of a high quality constant than the digital age we have just begun to get into. -- John Chicago, IL http://SlideOne.com on 11/6/01 5:30 PM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be significant in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to spend money on.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
I use (as you may have seen by now) Fuji NHGII, and Superia is said to be identical to Fuji Press 800, but Fuji reps have told me Superia is more grainy with a bit more contrast. The published specs (I think, not double checking) say equal grain however, and I've never done critical comparisons. The few rolls of Press 800 I've shot looked very similar to NHGII to me in casual comparisons from memory. Using the LS-30 I found a significant improvement in image structure and grain sharpness using VueScan, but I suppose you're already doing that. I don't see aliasing with 800 negs as much as with smaller grain negs, as grain is big enough for the scanner to see clearly. You really don't need to sharpen grain resolved clearly by the scan that much, I find much more than 75%, 0.8 radius, and 0 threshold begins to overemphasize grain more than a good optical projection would do. At some point you have to face the fact you'll never get super sharp big prints from 35mm, no matter what lens and film you use, unless you really start chasing resolution with advanced techniques, and even then it's *much* easier IMO just to shoot medium or large format and probably get better results too. If the grain is crisp but the picture is soft, than you can only look to your shooting technique. Unless, that is, you oversharpen in the digital domain, and that creates other problems. Selective sharpening can work pretty well, but it gets into more work than I want to do on most pictures. When I first got the SS4000 I wondered if it was overemphasing grain in my 800 negs, particularly in the sky. Careful comparisons of large prints to highly magnified negatives revealed a direct correspondence however - the scanner is seeing the negative very accurately. There is simply more grain in some areas of the negative than others. I wonder if this is due to some sort of stacking effect (Austin?), whereby areas with dyes closer to the color of the base appear grainier. Certainly smooth areas of tone show more grain in any film, color neg, trannie, BW. Anyway, I recognize big grain ain't for everyone, especially if you're trying to maximize sharpness and smoothness to the extent possible. I like grain as an escape from all that. That's what I deliver to my commercial clients and it gets boring:) Dave - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:36 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness? Dave wrote: A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price. Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan. Thanks, Dave. The other thing I meant to ask was what 800 speed film? Is it Fuji Superia 800 print film? Rob PS Tony Sleep has mentioned in the past that he often uses his SS4000 to scan Fuji 800 exposed at a higher speed and gets great results. My only experiences with 800 have been with low light (underexposed) images and was unimpressed with the grain aliasing I saw. Overexposed I don't doubt the story is different! Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: grain in negs/slides
I wonder that myself, and speculate it may have something to do with the base mask dye layer and some kind of "stacking" phenomena of similar color dyes. I've noticed that grain looks bigger (in scans and looking directly at negs magnified on the light table) in the areas where dye color is closest to the color of the base layer. Blue is formed by yellow dye for example, and yellow is close to the base mask color. I don't know if there are the same qualities we see scanning when doing optical enlargements however. Good quality optical enlargement could serve as an accurate point of reference, and separate digital artifact from actual properties of the films. It would be an interesting thing to investigate by doing exact comparisons, but most of us don't have that kind of access to good quality scanners and enlargers, and/or the time it would take to conduct the tests. Seems like it might be a good story for one of the photo magazines. Dave - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:46 AM Subject: filmscanners: grain in negs/slides Why do scans of color negatives appear grainier than those from slides? I have always read and experienced myself that color negs are less grainy, especially in high ISO emulsions and that in slides everything above ISO 100 shows pronounced grain (ok - naow we have Provia 400F). But from what you write and from my first set of scanned negs and slides I conclude that negs really show more grain that slides. What's the reason for this phenomenon? BTW the pronounced grain from my negs I don't consider intrusive in any way. I'm just curious what's so peculiar in film structures that different effects are achieved although both types of film use dye clouds. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski
filmscanners: Grain size in Fuji 800 color neg films
Out of curiosity I called Fuji tech support and got the skinny on grain and resolution in 800 speed films. NHGII has been replaced by the next generation, NPZ 800 Professional, and Press 800 and Superia 800 continue as before. All of them have the same specification for grain and res, RMS granularity of 5, and 50 lpm @ 1.6:1, and 100 lpm @ 1000:1. The tech person said Press and Superia are exactly the same film, and NPZ has moderately lower contrast for portrait or commercial photography. He confirmed that there is no effective difference in grain size. Dave
Re: filmscanners: neg conversion
I'm only guessing, but I think with an accurate conversion and the same basic process applied individual film qualities could be preserved, more or less. Depends how itchy your Photoshop trigger finger gets too:) I find that once I'm in Photoshop I'm just going for the best overall correction I can muster, and that is determined by style or sensibility or what ever you want to call it. In Photoshop you can make Astia look like Velvia if you want to. Dave - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:57 PM Subject: filmscanners: neg conversion Since I'm still a filmscanning theoretician :-) I have a basic question about the conversion of negatives that is made by VueScan or SilverFast, for example. Negatives have different qualities, some render blues with slight magenta cast, some give you a little reddish flash tones (Fuji), some have lower saturation, etc. Are all those qualities preserved during the conversion to positive image and can I still recognize those characteristics of a particular emulsion or do I get only "averaged" results? Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
I don't either, in the literal sense. He oversaw the printing. d At 06:21 PM 11/6/01, Dave King wrote: Oh I don't know, Cartier Bresson's large format prints from 40 year old negs look pretty good to me. But Bresson was more on intuition than engineering, and I don't think he made his photos or prints for photo geeks who look at a print from 2 inches away. I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
I love making 24x36 prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. I doubt they *really* look great. You go right ahead and doubt Austin. Based on the orientation you espouse on this list, I really could care less what you think. I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you resolution isn't what photography is about unless you're a geek! You don't have to be a geek to want decent resolution on certain images. Perhaps not (not committing to that position:), but if that's *all* you want, then friend, sorry, you are a geek. Not all, but there certainly are many images that require decent resolution to make the image. Yes, certainly. So what? Ducking for cover, You'd better! d:)
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
He also had an independent printer who's name I don't recall, but who is still around I think, who printed the exhibition prints I referred to. Bresson is said to have worked with this one printer most of his career. Dave - Original Message - From: Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness? Cartier-Bresson's prints were made by in the darkroom at Magnum. When I was in collage I had a friend that worked there. He could call down to the darkroom at any time and ask for a print (not that he did it that often because they had to be accounted for. He did have a print of one of the most famous Cartier-Bresson images hanging in his apartment. Larry I don't think Cartier-Bresson made his own prints. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price. Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan. Dave - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 11:57 PM Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness? Dave wrote: I love making 24x36 prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs shot with a $90 point and shoot. Why? Because they look great. What are you scanning the 800 speed film with, Dave? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
I want to apologize for the brusque tone in my previous post. Gee, thanks ;-) What I should have said, and am saying now, is that based on what you write here I doubt you would think these particular prints look great. And that, of course, is your choice, and it's OK with me that you probably wouldn't think they look great. I was being defensive:) In all honesty, I'd LOVE to see them...but I do have 30 years of photographic experience, both professionally and amateurly...and I am hard pressed to believe anyone could get a 2' x 3' print that's great from 35mm 800 speed color film... I have done 2' x 3' prints from 100 ASA BW 35mm film...and I must say, they are grainy, and they look OK, but not great. I am very careful about my development and minimizing grain (D-76 1:1 for Plus-X)...so it's based on my experience that I am a doubting Austin. It is, perhaps, just a difference in the word great, but without seeing them my self...and only based on my experience...well, you get the idea. I don't mind grain, in fact for certain things I kinda like it. I like the slightly impressionistic effect of the image falling apart as you get very close, and then see the molecular structure of the image instead. There can be a certain beauty in that. But still, I don't find current 800 films that grainy. I feel that Fuji NHGII probably has the finest grain of the current crop, and that's what I shoot. To me a great print is one that is faithful to the original film, and/or the artists intent. That leaves a lot of room, doesn't it? The shot on your web site is quite nice BTW, and I usually don't like kid shots. BTW, what the heck did you mean by Based on the orientation...? Did I say that?? :) Dave
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.2 Available
Ed, You're spoiling me:) I don't know if recent improvements are the reason or I just didn't try hard enough before, but I'm getting better color neg Agfa T-2500 scans with VueScan now than FotoLook. The SS4000 for 35mm and the T-2500 for anything bigger are both running VueScan and happy. I'm a fan. Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness between their lenses when scanning films? Rob Not particularly, but nearly all of my Nikkors are at least pretty good, and some of them are excellent. The softest 35mm lens I own is a Sigma 14mm, but it's primarily for emergencies:) Used within certain constraints, even it's quite sharp. Most lenses these days are pretty good, and the differences between shooting optimal technique (high shutter speed relative to camera movement and small enough aperature) and less than optimal technique, is usually a significantly greater factor than you'll otherwise see with different modern lenses. Many photographers feel they get greater clarity with faster films because of this (when hand holding, something you may want to do with a 35:) even tho the test charts might lead one to a different conclusion. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Harvey, Sorry for the stupid question, but have you done this test in an effectively dark room? Perhaps you're seeing ambient light begin to contribute to exposure? For ambient light not to have any effect on exposure it should be at least 5 stops below the working setting. I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. Dave - Original Message - From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI B.Rumary wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit opening between the shutter curtains. I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M. It _is_ related to the synch speed, because electronic flash is so fast that it needs the entire image area exposed when the flash goes off. If the camera speed is set above the synch speed, then the moving slit effect means that only that portion of the film exposed by the slit at the moment of flash will get the benefits of the flash. The flash-lighted area will then be correctly exposed, while the non-lit area will be heavily under-exposed. Note this only applies to electronic flash guns, which give very short duration flashes - typically 1/30,000 sec. The old fashioned flash bulbs burn much more slowly and give light for long enough for the slit to do it's full run across the film. I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a short duration. It has been my experience that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second exposure and almost any brand electronic flash will yield very different film exposures, no matter what type of shutter you are using. Harvey Ferdschneiderpartne partner, SKID photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: (OT) Pixels per inch vs DPI
That could explain this. My 1000 w/s dynalites are probably shorter duration than the 2400 w/s packs. Love the Chemical Bros BTW. Fun stuff. Dave From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've experienced the 250th of a second cut off of lighting output on our Polaroids. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Speedotron Black Line 2400 watt-second has a flash duration of 1/300th second, and shorter if you dial down the power. That's typical of studio power packs. That duration is measured between the 10 percent points. I'm not sure why you'd care about latency (I have to admit I haven't been following this off-topic discussion closely). Latency (the time lag it takes for the light out put to reach 10 percent of its peak) should be measured in microseconds rather than milliseconds and should rarely be of concern. In a message dated 10/31/2001 3:56:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor. It takes some time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess different types of flashes have different timing (latency). Does anyone actually know what a typical flashes latency time is? I can check my Elinchroms to see what they say this time is supposed to be...as I have the service manuals for them, and they are pretty comprehensive...hopefully, they'll have something to say about it.
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree to understand:) Dave - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit opening between the shutter curtains. I know what you say CAN be certainly true for the highest speeds of some cameras, but I did not know it was specifically related to the synch speed...I believe it's more related to shutter design than specifically tied to sync speed. Would you mind citing a source for that information? That is certainly not the case with vertical shutters, which all but one of my 35mm cameras have (Contaxes and Nikons), the exception being my Leica M.
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Margins are cool. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree to understand:) In simple terms, yes...the concept IS simple...but there may be other factors involved (such as the mechanical timing of the sync closure, latency, and possibly tolerance), which is what I am asking. It may be that the next speed up from synch is also fully open. Shutter speeds can be quite off from what they are labeled...so to allow margins, the next speed down from one that is fully open may be the one they use for max sync speed, possibly to assure reliability.
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 - Insight too hot?
I'm using the 4000 for the first time since an initial test to make sure it worked properly. I've been trying Insight, Vuescan and Silverfast 5.1 ai on a Win 98 box. So far all my scans are color negs. You should try Version 5.5 if scanning negatives. It is a LOT better. You can download a demo and check it out yourself. Am I correct the primary improvement is the addition of film terms? Anyway, I'm posting to get others impressions about something I'm been seeing with Insight - too much saturation, a hot rendition of anything I scan. May look good to some, but it ain't accurate - kind of a Velvia view on everything. Is there something I can do to flatten the image going in? I prefer to build up contrast and saturation in Photoshop as needed instead of the other way round. That is unusual. Is this occurring in the preview or only the scan? Check which profile you are using as the basis for your preview display. If based upon your own monitor profile it might be that there is something not quite right with it Well I think it is based on the monitor profile, except the file comes in as untagged. It seems Insight's curves controls aren't accessable unless set up this way. My monitor profile is PhotoCal/Spyder, but the profile may be wonky because I'm using a slightly wonky method to get around the fact my monitor doesn't have individually adjustable guns. Time for a better monitor perhaps:) I'll try again with my working space selected and forego Insight curves and see if that helps. BTW, I've been discovering the value in the hue/sat controls when correcting raw scans. It seems to me that without a good film term the individual RGB curves can be so wonky as to be near impossible to correct using just curves. What's your take on this Ian?? Thanks, Dave Ian Lyons
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't leave anything out...it doesn't matter WHAT size pixel, a pixel is but a single value of tonality, period. A pixel does NOT contain the same amount of information as A dye cloud. As I said, dye clouds are variable in shape, and a pixel is only a square (or some fixed shape), and the data in A pixel (he said A) does not represent this shape. I dare say an individual dye cloud varies in tone as well as shape, if not color as well. There are contaminants you know. There is obviously no way one pixel could represent an individual dye cloud with complete accuracy. One need not be an engineer to understand this:) A more interesting question (to me) would be how many pixels are needed to do the job (per cloud, of course). Then we would know the answer to the question, how many angels can dance on a pixel describing the head of a needle in the haystack that's lost in the clouds bg Dave
filmscanners: SS4000 - Insight too hot?
I'm using the 4000 for the first time since an initial test to make sure it worked properly. I've been trying Insight, Vuescan and Silverfast 5.1 ai on a Win 98 box. So far all my scans are color negs. I don't really like the Silverfast interface - too many gizmos, and the one scan I tried so far wasn't encouraging. If Silverfast would simplify the interface and allow ai to output hi-bit I would be more interested. As it is, I don't think I'm going to be using it unless it works better for chromes. Anyway, I'm posting to get others impressions about something I'm been seeing with Insight - too much saturation, a hot rendition of anything I scan. May look good to some, but it ain't accurate - kind of a Velvia view on everything. Is there something I can do to flatten the image going in? I prefer to build up contrast and saturation in Photoshop as needed instead of the other way round. BTW, Vuescan is working very well, no complaints there. Just wondering if I can get up to speed with Insight too. Thanks, Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Loading the Polaroid 4000 Filmstrip Carrier?
There really isn't that much to it when you realize (finally:) that you should hold the carrier so that you're only gripping it by the edges of the bottom part. This allows the top part to bow when you push the release tab, and then it's very easy to open. Dave - Original Message - From: Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:13 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Loading the Polaroid 4000 Filmstrip Carrier? Thanks Johnny and Margaret Thanks for the advice. I was reluctant to push too hard, fearing I'd break it. But, following your advice, with much pushing, I got it open. It was easier the next time. I also managed to load it. The Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 is, by comparison, a pleasure to load. But, then, it costs a lot more. Martin on 10/25/01 9:25 PM, Johnny Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:56 PM 10/25/01 -0400, Martin Greene wrote: I'm amazed, but I just can't figure out how to open the filmstrip carrier. Would appreciate help. Hi Martin, If you think getting it open is a pain - just wait until you try to load it with film. ;-) The catch operates just like it looks. You just have to press really, really hard. It'll wear in with use. It won't get easier to load. Later, Johnny __ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
I take it from your comment that Insight does not have provision for IT-8 calibration. Does it at least have provision for using the profile made with Silverfast? What I want in a scanner software is the ability to set endpoints, get essentially the same tone/color balance as the original (profile comes in here), and high bit output. I'm another one who prefers doing final edits on high bit files in PS. Dave King - Original Message - From: David Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear. If you have trouble, forget it, and go right to using Polacolor. For your first scans, only use well exposed slides. Polacolor is easy to use, and should deliver you good scans right from the get go. Truly, a few clicks and you're there. Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. But please get comfortable with slides first. You'll be happier. Have fun, David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
I haven't been following this thread of late, but isn't there a setting that takes longer but DOES NOT band at all? If so, why not just use that? Epson printers frequently band at all but the slowest settings, so that's what I always use. This would seem like a similar situation? Just wondering Dave - Original Message - From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:32 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands... Well, My 8000 is back from a trip to Nikon service and they could find nothing wrong with it so they cleaned it and sent it back. Needless to say, it still has the same banding issues it did when I sent it. I have it plugged into it's very own UPS, set away from other stuff etc. No help. Now what to do? I am going to call them in the morning but I don't think it's going to help to do so. They are still pretending this issue does not really exist. Funny how so many of use are suffering from something imagined... Customer service, have your checkbook ready because this unit is coming home to the mothership for good Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * *
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
I was in the same boat as you, and of the same opinion, until I downloaded a recent version of Vuescan. I'm very impressed with the improvements Ed has made recently (I use an LS-30). There are still occasions where Nikonscan seems to get the better range of colors with chromes (after editing both in Photoshop). I'd like to understand why this is but can't say that I do. Color negs are beautiful with Vuescan -- the image structure itself is considerably better than what comes out of Nikonscan, and no complaints about the color. Dave - Original Message - From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question I am one of those who has not found the problems that others report with Nikonscan; I have found it to do what it should do, quickly and with great control. I bought Vuescan after reading how much better it was, but have not found it to be either better or worse, just different and much more difficult to use - for me (who has not spent much time on learning how to cope with its non-G UI). The histogram in Nikonscan I find invaluable: I always feel as though I am flying blind with Vuescan even though the results are usually not bad. Last time I tried Vuescan's IR dust removal I found it didn't work as well for me as ICE, but this may have improved since then, or at least I should say it definitely has improved going by what I have read here. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. I suggest the obvious - try Nikonscan (which you have) and try Vuescan (try-before-you-buy version) and compare. Then tell us what you discover. Julian PS if it is the learning curve that is worrying you about Nikonscan, I think it is not too bad, and you will learn much about your scanner features and capabilities that would be useful anyway, even if you end up using Vuescan. The Vuescan interface means that you can remain unaware of scanner features for a long time! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Woolfenden Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:27 PM To: FILMSCANNERS Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan question I'm a little apprehensive asking this question considering the present debate , but , I'm a total novice to scanning and you've got to start somewhere I've just bought a Nikon 4000 scanner , which came with the Nikon Scan3 software . I've not even used it enough to form an opinion about it , but am wondering whether I should be going straight over to vuescan - others have told me its better. Is this the case and what does it do that the supplied stuff wont? Thanks , Steve p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys! Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
- Original Message - From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:11 PM 7/16/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: I disagree with him (Margulis) on one point however, and I consider myself a color balance freak. Why? In an average color photograph, global color contrast is maximized at one point only -- the most accurate color balance possible for that scene. I just don't see how one can get there working by the numbers only (unless one also wants to make prints by the iterative hard proofing process), but I do see how one can get there on a properly color calibrated system. Or at least much closer. I would guess it's 80% vs 95%. There's no substitute for *looking* at actual color when judging this (that I'm presently aware of). The most accomplished fine art color photographers also making digital prints would seem to agree judging by their approaches. Early on in Professional Photoshop (v.4 -- the one I read, way back) Dan explains how he had a color-blind friend doing color corrections, using the basic principles/goals that he outlines. This friend made a few errors, but in fact most of his corrections yielded beautiful results, which do appear in the book. Dan insists that you could use a monochrome monitor to do color corrections. Now, I admit I haven't tried that. But it is quite a provocative claim, and follows logically from Dan's numerical approach. I don't find this assertion provocative at all, because I've proven to my own satisfaction this approach works well enough for general quality publication work. Some scenes are corrected to almost 100% accuracy by the numbers, but most are not in my experience. I don't remember Dan using the word accuracy anywhere in that book. Ie., color accuracy, per se, isn't held up as a major goal. Speaking for myself: my goal is to produce pleasing, believable photographs, of subjects I've chosen. Matching colors to Pantone swatches is nowhere on my list of priorities. In this regard, I reserve for my own color work the freedom that BW photographers enjoy, where nobody argues about the accuracy of the rendition. It's inherently subjective. So, maybe it's not for everybody. If you have clients with specific demands for color accuracy, you may need to go with the more mainstream, ICC-sanctioned methods. rafe b. I don't match swatches either. I have matched paintings critically on occasion however, and found it quite instructive. There is such a thing as accuracy in color photography, but you can choose to ignore it if you like, and probably be none the worse for it if you're doing creative work to please yourself. But, consider a few things... Contrast determines form, and there are only two types, tonal and color. Color contrast becomes progressively compressed as you move away from the most accurate balance possible under the circumstances. It's going toward and eventually ending in monochrome. If you're essentially a colorist in your approach to composition, inaccurate color in photography may not be a good thing. Or it may not matter, or inaccurate balances may work better, depending on intent. But the point is, it's not a bad thing to have full control over the aesthetics of color in composition. I would argue this is only possible (in a practical sense) by direct viewing, because color interactions can be pretty subtle and still be quite important. Until digital allowed effective color management this level of visual aesthetic control was only possible by the iterative print process. Digital editing and accurate displays speed up the process considerably, and allow decisions that arguably wouldn't be possible otherwise. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?)
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in house since there's no film anyway. Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually backfire on honery and stubborn printers because clients will just take jobs where they get printed well. I have clients who trust me and see good results with my files from some printers and not others. Guess which ones will get repeat business. Dave - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?) This is a horror story that many people in the industry could have written, myself included (although I was usually submitting reflective art, not digital). One answer might be to go in and work the Macs yourself (but I've never seen a repro house that would allow that). Since I mostly worked on the Client side of the street, I had a bit more clout than a 'mere' photographer would--but I always tried to extend that clout to getting the best reproduction of the photographer's work (for which I'd paid a princely sum, I might add ;-) ). I got my ass kicked around a lot, too, but (if I might boast) I gave as good as I got, most of the time. I wasn't ashamed of most of the results (but I sure as hell heard about the others, let me tell you)--lost a job or two in the process; that's the 'down'side. Is there an answer? Yeah, when Profits and Repro Houses get reasonable, and pigs fly, there probably will be. Until that happens, all you can do is the best you can do, and hang tough. Wish I could offer better. Best regards--LRA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:48 +0100 (BST) On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:42:49 -0500 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Dan's response would be that most repro houses don't use embedded color profiles anyway - they do it the old-fashioned way. If he's wrong, please tell him ;) He's largely right, although I just had a magazine repro screw-up this week which seems likely to be explained as the repro house doing manual adjustments to a tagged image on a (gamma=1.0 by the look of it) input workstation which didn't speak ICC, and then sending it to an pagesetter which *did* - with (the now completely inappropriate) Colormatch RGB tag still in place that indicated, among other things, that the gamma was 1.8. The postmortem is continuing... fortunately, on this occasion the repro house concerned is keen to address the problems and open to discussion. I spent half of Saturday trying to figure out what had gone wrong and emailing the Art Ed. Fortunately both she and the editor had seen the scans on their own calibrated screens in PS, before they went to repro, else I would be getting the blame. The trouble is that even though they said they loved the pics, next time they might avoid the problem by giving the work to someone who turns in work on E6 instead. If I'd wanted to shoot it like that I'd have done so, but I use this stuff to get better pics in worse circumstances. It works, they agree - but if the repro buggers it, it's a chocolate teapot. Whatever, it's a nightmare. ICC tags are not a panacea, and can cause extra problems - as they seem to have done on this occasion. OTOH if you don't use them, whatever you intended the image to look like is out of your control entirely. You had better supply a print or tranny instead. Some repro houses never seem to have problems, others have been so disastrous I have lost clients as a result. Faced with a choice between a photographer and a repro house, the repro house wins, if only for contractual reasons. Basically Margulis is right IME. Repro houses don't need to use nor understand ICC, and wherever they do, it's because they have had to find some way of coping with 'externally supplied' scans. In UK this is rare, at least among repro houses working for 50,000+ circulation magazines. Yet this problem is not going to go away, since there are good (creative control) reasons for photographers to scan and supply images in dig format. Right now, it is safer to supply untagged files and trust that others in the chain are capable of sensible judgements about what looks right. Often they aren't, as printers are skilled at matching scans to images, not imagination. Also many repro houses want to keep every bit of scanning business, and have good reasons to portray photographer-supplied scans as inferior, risky and a route to terrible results. It doesn't help that a lot are, of course. But it's distressing to get clients, do a job they are happy with, and then lose them because the repro goes to shit. I don't know what the answer
Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
- Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 9:30 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)? A bigger budget for the lens? ;) - but also the whole point of a curved film gate is to equalise raypath lengths. There is no such creature as a truly flat-field lens, and this is especially true of macros. AIUI the Imacons work rather like a drumscanner, presumably moving either the film or lens/CCD relative to the film (I still haven't seen one in the flesh so don't know which). The curved film plane eliminates focus errors due to differing focal points along the longest dimension. Of course, to do it properly the Imacon would need the film to be dished in both directions :) Regards Tony Sleep You make an interesting point. The Imacon, (as you know?) curves the film in the long dimension so that it will be perfectly flat (in practical terms) along the short dimension to a slot that the lens sees through to the focal plane (or line in this case) at the film. Since the slot runs across the short dimension of the film, unequal distances are reduced but not eliminated. Regarding your other comment no creature as a truly flat field lens I would only say there are many lenses corrected well enough to get the job done (again) in practical terms, but as you say, it helps to start with longer than normal focal lengths. Perhaps lens focal length has something to do with the Imacons high performance levels. If I recall Imacon uses an apo Rodogon, which are among the best available. The Imacon also appears to be a longer than usual light path, and it's unfolded as well. Dave
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
I disagree with him (Margulis) on one point however, and I consider myself a color balance freak. Why? In an average color photograph, global color contrast is maximized at one point only -- the most accurate color balance possible for that scene. I just don't see how one can get there working by the numbers only (unless one also wants to make prints by the iterative hard proofing process), but I do see how one can get there on a properly color calibrated system. Or at least much closer. I would guess it's 80% vs 95%. There's no substitute for *looking* at actual color when judging this (that I'm presently aware of). The most accomplished fine art color photographers also making digital prints would seem to agree judging by their approaches. But I think his Color Theory list is one of the very best, and I have learned much reading it. I love the signal to noise ratio there :) Margulis may well be a genius, and so perhaps Austin would like him -- they could go to Mensa meetings together. :) Dave - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question Please don't let his arrogance turn you off - he knows what he's talking about to the nth degree. His specialty is color correction, and I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of graphics amateurs and professionals have read his book and use what they have learned from him. Maris - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:15 PM Subject: RE: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question | | One article is online at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Sharpen.pdf | | I haven't read enough to know if this guy Margulis knows what he's talking | about or not, but to quote from one of his articles: | | Anyone who thinks that if a fine screen is good, than a finer one must be | better is a moron. | | Right or wrong, I really have no interest in reading anything from someone | who is so disrespectful of his readers and feels he needs to call them | names, no matter how much of a genius he may be. |
Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: RE: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question He issued a challenge (as he often does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could offer any. And you gave me a hard time about my similar belief/comments on profiles for scanners! I don't believe I've ever heard Dan be quite so demonstrative against anybody *beta-testing* ANYTHING. I don't think I've ever heard you *asking* if profiles work for anyone. Todd Er, my point in that discussion was that they were not really very useful...and other experienced uses chimed in and agreed. And an equal number of experienced users use 'em. Show me the posts that supports this. I only remember a few people chiming in and saying that they may use them as a starting point, or as a newbie, they may use them, but I do not recall ANY experienced users saying they used them. Did you have a look at the thread last month on the Colorsync list where several experts from around the world (of scanning:) pointed out the benefits? To paraphrase and condense (by memory), the advantage has to do with getting more accurate curves (RGB) than possible with post scan corrections, resulting in final results with more accurate internal color, quite noticable in practice (SOTA level), according to those posting. No doubt there are those experts (Margulis) who would still disagree, but with the advent of very high quality color digital printing (Lightjet and ink jet), Margulis's apparent point of reference (off set) may no longer be best in the SOTA sense. Dave
Re: filmscanners: SS120 Nikon 8000 ... how do they work?
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: Art wrote: Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about 4800 x 7200 ppi, optically. Not unsurprisingly, I thought of the same thing when I saw how Mickey Mouse the HP 6300C's film adapter was; project an 11x8 image onto an inverted ground-Lucite panel layered onto the scanner glass.. It's an idea that's come up many times, in many different forums. I've never seen it taken to any sort of completion. It's utterly ironic, of course, that a $29 flatbed can supply far more raw bits than a $400 or $800 film scanner. Another possible avenue for tinkerers... Use the basic optical bench of a cheap but worthy old film scanner (eg. Polaroid SprintScan LE) and replace the stepper motor, CCD, and related electronics. There'd be a lot of hardware and software to re-design, but you might get by with most of the existing mechanics and optics. rafe b. Didn't Canon use this idea when they introduced the original Canon Laser Copier? If I recall it was a device that looked like a combination of a slide projector and overhead transparency projector. Worked pretty well. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path correct? The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive scanners. Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the Imacon, cost. Dave - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid A small comparison between Imacon Photo 3200 ppi , Polaroid SS120 4000 ppi, and Nikon LS4000 at 4000 ppi. Test slide 24 x 36 by Leitz was used as reference. ( glass mounted) Test slide 24 x36 un mounted. 1. Imacon at 3200 ppi was a lot sharper and show significant more details than the Nikon and Polaroid scanner does. 2. Polaroid SS 120 did not wipe the floor with Nikon LS4000. ( Ian Lyons statement) Non of us how made the test could se any difference between Nikon Ls 4000 and Polaroid SS 120 in sharpness and resolution of a 24 x 36 test slide. 3. Test with un mounted slide strip . This test slide is little bit curved as a normal slide film are. Here have Nikon LS 4000 problem with over all sharpness, excellent in the middle but unsharp out against the sides and corner. (manual film holder) Same manual film holder and a negative film how are extremely flat = no problem with over all sharpness in the Nikon scanner. 4. Scratches and dust are more visible in scannings by Nikon LS 4000 than Polaroid and Imacon. Discussion: How can we se more dust and scratches from the Nikon scanner but not have more resolution and details from the test slide and the Nikon scanner ?? We turned around the slide with emulsion side up ( mounted like in Imacon) and have the same results.? Where is the maximum focus in the Nikon scanner? Conclusion: Imacon best scanner but slow in final scanning , up to 6 min. to scan a 24 x36 slide at 3200ppi. SS 120 good scanner at 24 x 36 fast but not better than Nikon LS4000. SS 120 have less problem with curved film than Nikon LS 4000.. Nikon LS 4000 not sharp at all as the Imacon scanner, have problem with curved film and depth of field , small and fast. So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear from Rafe and Lawrence what they have discovered about sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film. Mikael Risedal __ ___ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
Quickpoint mounts available from Reel 3-D really work for the 35mm curved slide problem. Glassless, very flat, and nearly full frame. The mounts have strips of sticky adhesive top and bottom, you mount the slide with a slight bend in the mount, then it pulls flat. Highly recommended. http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/mounts-twin.html Dave - Original Message - From: Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Mikael Risedal wrote: So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear from Rafe and Lawrence what they have discovered about sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film. There's no question in my mind that depth of field (or is it depth-of-focus) is quite limited on the Nikon 8000. It's a sad fact. Next to the banding, it is the #1 most serious problem on this scanner, IMHO. (Banding is mostly in remission. Ss. Let sleeping dogs lie.) Curvature is more a characteristic of 35 mm than it is 120 film, and probably worst with slides (vs. strips of negatives.) 120 film tends to be limp but at least it does not offer resistance against the film holder. I've seen no D.O.F. issues at all with 35 mm negatives. Which is lucky, because I shoot mostly negative film. I've seen moderate to severe D.O.F. issues on certain slides, and in certain positions within the 35 mm slide holder. Slides are a mystery. Some are tack-sharp, some are completely mis- focused. Needs more investigation, but for me, not a critical issue, yet. I've seen moderate D.O.F. issues with 120 film. Usually, with some fiddling, I can get the whole strip (or most of it) to lay very flat in the holder. Sometimes I give up -- settle for one or two negatives flat and reposition later for the next set of negatives on the same strip. It may be that I haven't fully mastered the 120 film holder, or that I'll need to try the glass holders if/when they're available. Definitely room for improvement here. It's a whole new ball game compared to the old SprintScan Plus. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
It is better in practice of course, but with a little forethought and extra work that benefit can be negated. Dave - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:57 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path correct? The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive scanners. Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the Imacon, cost. Same thing with the Leafscan, it also has a straight light path, no mirrors. Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film holders. I am not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature.
Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
- Original Message - From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:47 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid At 03:57 PM 7/13/01 -0400, Austin wrote: The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path correct? The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive scanners. Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the Imacon, cost. Same thing with the Leafscan, it also has a straight light path, no mirrors. Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film holders. I am not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature. Are we certain that the 8000 ED and/or the LS-120 use mirrors? Where does this information come from? This was commonly reported to be the case on some other scanners. I can tell you that it is categorically not true for the Microtek 35t+ and the SprintScan Plus -- no mirrors in either of those; the both use the identical optical/mechanical bench. rafe b. You're right, the focal length of a good medium format lens might be as short as 4-6. Easily contained in either scanner. Perhaps someone will have a look inside and tell us. If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)? Dave
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Or they all are. Those of us who make a living from photography take the lists seriously. I've learned most of what I know about digital photography from lists such as this, and like Rafe, want to see on topic and relevant discussion. Dave - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:34 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 Dave King wrote: Rafe, you are right on the money. Dave Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
into the scanner. If it's bowed you will see that easily, and then you can tweak it flat before mounting. BTW, for people who are thinking about bowing as a purchasing decision, despite my pre-purchasing concerns and my one negative experience, I'm overall pleasantly surpsied with the lack of bowiong for 6 cm x 9 cm slides. Of the five or so cut 6 x 9 cm slides I've scanned thus far, there was bowing softness in only one portion of the very top of one slide (covering less than 5% of the overall area of the scan); in the other 6 x 9cm cut slides I've scanned, I have not observed ANY bowing effect. For film that is still in strips (another 5 sample scans or so thus far), bowing does not appear to have any effect at all; scan one end of the strip, then flip the strip around before scanning the slide at the open end. The thing I don't like about the Polaroid 120 mm holders, however, is that they necessarily mask off a portion of the slide. If the slide is in landscape format, you are losing a small portion at the top and bottom of the slide. This is because the holder has a ledge to holder the slides, but the ledge intrudes slightly into the image frame. Overall the lost image area is not horribly significant (you're probably left with the equivalent of about 95% viewfinder coverage in a single lens reflex), but, because I shoot a view camera with a 6 cm x 9 cm back and see 100% of the image area on the ground glass when composing, it means that I'm not able to scan everything I saw on the ground glass when taking the image. Can you file the carrier? A time honored tradition for darkroom work. 3. Dust. It can take a lot of time to dust a 170 Megabyte 24 bit file (6 cm x 9 cm scans reduced to 3000 dpi using Photoshop's bicubic interpolation). I'm finding that if I take an extra couple of minutes with a handblower before doing the scan, I can reduce dusting time to about 10 minutes per 6cm x 9 cm scan; not bad, considering that it means no digital ICE softnening at all is introduced. (BTW in the June '01 issue of PEI magazine there's an excellent article on how to decrease dusting time by 1/2 or less; it really works!) Do any of you have particular tricks or products you use that are effective for getting dust off of slides before scanning them? BTW, if/when Polaroid comes out wtih a glass carrier for 120 mm film, one problem will be 4 additional surfaces to collect dust, but no digital ICE for reducing it. Tradeoffs involved, as always. Again, under the task lamp you'll see dust clearly (hold it at the correct angle to the lamp and the dust will show up very clearly). Then you can use dust off and/or a small sable brush to clear the film of dust. Don't build up static by working the neg too much. After loading the film into the scanner it's unlikely additional dust will accumulate. Hope this helps some of you in evaluating a Sprintscan 120 purchase, and thanks in advance for any feedback on my questions. For those deciding between the Sprintscan 120 and Nikon 8000ED, my overall initial feeling about the the SS120 is that it's an excellent scanner and offers excellent value. Sharpness, color fidelity, and tonal reproduction (without minimal noise, if any) are it's strong points. I'd like it to be perfect, which it's not. Enjoy. This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format size. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprintscan 120
At 10:41 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: Enjoy. This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format size. I'm not sure I agree there, Dave. The Leafscan 45 and the Imacons (both CCD) have been around for a while. The two new models (from Polaroid and Nikon) are poised, IMHO, somewhere between these two very worthy (but dated) standards. On 35 mm, the Leaf 35 and 45 can probably still beat either the Polaroid or Nikon. Er, that is, if you have an hour or so to wait (on the Leaf.) What *is* quite significant is the price that these new models are being offered at -- roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the Leaf's original price, or Imacon's current retail price. rafe b. OK, I don't agree with myself either. What I should have said is first generation of practical CCD scanners etc. These puppies will profilerate like bunnies, and that can't really be said of any previous medium format scanners for critical work. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Scanner calibration for old dyes!
Andrea, The calibrated auto correction will try to match the chrome for color in whatever state it's in, but it sets the end points (contrast) for a good black and white. My guess is you're getting scans that are too contrasty to correct. You can put contrast in, but if you take it out you lose so much image detail the image just looks wrong no matter what you do. So I would try scanning with the custom IT-8 profile for color, but include the edge of the mount in the scan area and the black point should set on that. Hopefully this will give an approximation of the original. Then import the scan into Photoshop (use a hi-bit scan) and put the chrome on a 5000K light box and work toward an exact match with curves etc. A hardware calibrated monitor will probably help a lot in this situation. AFAIK there is nothing you can do beyond trying to get a fairly flat and raw scan into Photoshop to work on because different films fades individually. With practice you may even get relatively fast -- relative to real slow that is :) Dave - Original Message - From: Andrea de Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:07 PM Subject: filmscanners: Scanner calibration for old dyes! Hello, I have my Microtek Artixscan 4000T calibrated using the Kodak IT8 slide and my chromes look ok; The problem is when I have to scan very old slides, dated back in the 1940' and 1950; the have major color deterioration; by apply the current ICC profile I will get very bad color balanced images; this is because the dyes and colors of the current target from Kodak, Agfa, etc, are very different from the images dated back in the 1940 ... How shall I than calibrated and match my color for those kind of old images, considering the fact that I do not want really to provide accurate color restoration, BUT scan and maintain the color hue and color value of those old images close to as they are today??? TIA; Andrea -- Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum http://www.alinari.com The world's oldest picture library tel: +39-055-2395201 fax: +39-055-2382857
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Rafe, you are right on the money. Dave - Original Message - From: Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: Is the criticism valid? Yeah, it is. And it's fixable, too. Have I seen anybody trying to do so, lately? Nuh-uh. AFAIC, the mfgrs are just cutting to deep to be competitive--they're cutting the product, cutting the user, and ultimately cutting themselves, IMHO. With all due respect, Lynn -- your comments, while valid (as usual) are beside the point. I could, if I chose to, indulge in all sorts of brand-bashing. I've tried to stay on good behavior and avoid that. It serves no purpose. Whatever my issues may be with Nikon -- and I've been very blunt about them -- I've learned nothing on this list that will help me deal with those issues. Where I've discovered problems with my Nikon, and subsequent workarounds, I've shared this knowledge with the list. A discussion on technical merits is what I expect. Recitations of unfounded, inflammatory opinions, alleged regional allegiances, pop-psychology and broad generalizations serve no useful purpose. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:15 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote: I'm musing whether Nikon has a factory in the deep south of the US. I'm noting a very strong allegiance to the company coming from those environs... Is my residence in the Deep South some sort of problem for you? I've been in Georgia for three years and lived in the Pacific NW before that--right near you. I neither know nor care where Nikon makes its hardware. I don't use their cameras either as I prefer Canon. Let's keep regional biases out of this diverse international list and keep the level of discussion on a professional level. My musing was based upon two posts, yours, and the one a few days earlier by Ray (Greensboro, NC) who was very concerned that Nikon not be slandered by Claudiu when he called Nikonscan garbage software. As I stated before, there is something about Nikon film scanner owners that makes them guard their reputation like a mother bear does her cubs. What a bunch of horse poopie Art. Your ad hominem attacks on Nikon test my patience, and apparently others here feel the same way. Nikon makes some of the best CCD scanners for photographers extant, period, end of story. True, they're not for everyone and they're not perfect. So what else is new? It's been suggested you give it a rest. I second the motion. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Sort of. There were three iterations of this basic design, two as the Leica CL, and last as the Minolta CLE. The first were collaborations between Leica and Minolta with a mechanical shutter and sort of wonky metering mechanics. Never really like that camera personally because of that. Minolta and Leitz parted company in the last design, and Minolta used a modern electronic shutter and added a 28mm lens to the CL's 40 and 90. The whole package was (is) very very pretty if you like efficient design. Unfortunately, Minolta pulled the plug on the CLE after a few years. I suppose it went under appreciated in it's time, and even today Leica aficionado's will distain it as a lady's camera because of it's compact size. Distain away I say, I prefer the Minolta CLE to M Leicas personally. I could go on, but since this is off topic I'll give a link to a site with more CLE (and other Leica) info. http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm Dave - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:03 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera Am I mistaken, or wasn't the Minolta CLE also sold in a different skin as a Leica? Dave King wrote: I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years ago to get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don't shoot in the rain:), but for sheer image quality vs camera size and ease of use there has never been better IMHO. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film grain
C-41 film has so much latitude that manufactures can rate it one to two stops faster than the optimal speed and get away with it. But at the optimal speed, all photographic qualities (grain size, resolution, and color accuracy) is best. More exposure than best exposure is less detrimental than less in terms of absolute quality, but within a range of several stops, quality is for practical purposes, the same. In other words, it's not really overexposing the film to rate it one to two stops slower than the manufacture's recommendation. Other things being equal, faster ratings market better, so manufactures tend to rate C-41 films at the minimum for acceptable good result. LED scanners are different than enlargers however, and overexposure more than two stops may build enough density to cause problems. A good general rating for most C-41 films is one stop overexposure (for best quality). Dave - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 9:25 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT: Film grain I was wondering if anyone on the list could explain to me chemically how it is that overexposing a colour negative makes the film grain smaller? I had no problem with a silver based film getting coarser grain wit exposure, but C41 doing the opposite has me stumped. I know it *does*, but I don't understand how! Please email me off the list. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Overexposure (was:OT: Film grain
Absolute density of a C-41 neg doesn't build nearly as quickly as other film types, which is one of the reasons it has such exposure latitude. The range of densities *in the film* itself is less than chrome and conventionally processed BW negs, but (and here's the kicker) C-41 film is capable of recording a greater range of subject luminosities also. More information compacted (if you will) into a shorter space. Which (in theory) makes it a good film for CCD scanners. So highlight details even in +1 shots taken in direct sun (except for speculars of course) should exhibit full detail in a good CCD scan. Personally I agree with Roger Miller about correct exposure, and want to emphasize that the differences in grain structure vs exposure increases are going to be pretty subtle except where C-41 film veers toward underexposure. Think of the manufacture's rating as the minimum needed to get good full range results. Overexposing by one stop, even with exact exposure controls, is still a good idea, even though the gains may be minimal. Actually, in practice I usually overexpose by only 2/3 stop as I feel most of the quality gain has accrued by that point. If I need the speed more than the quality however, I shoot at the rating. I've yet to shoot and scan Portra, but I've heard it's great stuff. Dave - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 10:21 AM Subject: filmscanners: Overexposure (was:OT: Film grain Dave King wrote: ...it's not really overexposing the film to rate it one to two stops slower than the manufacture's recommendation. This might work particularly well in a studio environment, but I'm wondering how it would work in direct sunlight. I'm tempted to try it, to get better shadow definition. Certainly, one could expect the grain to be less, but would the trade-off be burned-out highlight details? Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Grain aliasing myth (was Minolta DiMAGE Scan etc)
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:19:27 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I also don't really believe in film-grain aliasing -- film grain is essentially non-periodic, or, more accurately white noise -- ie, containing an even distribution of frequency element It's not though - it's pink noise, biased toward a range of frequencies (grain sizes) which depend on material, exposure and process. How else do you account for grain aliasing (or whatever it is) often manifesting in particular areas of an image of similar tone/density, but not elsewhere? Regards Tony Sleep You see grain size vary by tone/color in analogue prints too. It would be very interesting to compare CCD scans and inkjet prints to analogue enlargements. I'm wondering if the grain variance effect is similar. Dave
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
'Popular Photography' is to Photography as 'The Sound of Music' is to Music. ted orland Robert Wright Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:53:25 +0200 From: Oostrom, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test. Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine, sent to Holland-- plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not such a popular magazine among filmscanner people?
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
I use Frontier prints for my commercial clients who need quantity prints. The requirement is to prepare an output size TIFF file at 300 dpi, and tagged sRGB. My studio system is calibrated using ColorVision PhotoCal and Profiler Pro, and the Frontier prints are practically identical to my 1160 dye on glossy prints from the same files. It's great having Photoshop and color management available for high quality "C" print processes, and Frontier print costs are reasonable. (it's the X-rite DTP-41 that's expensive:) Dave - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. I will read your answers with great interest. Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Settings
Doing successive previews, I recently found I couldn't revert to the start over point. How does one do this? Dave My 7.1.3 has a seperate control for Image Brightness and Gamma. Image brightness will affect the blacks of the image, Gamma not so much. I often leave Black to .01 or so which results in the black edge of negs or slide masks going close to 0, I almost always go with Maximum and do any cropping later. It has - the 'image brightness' setting sets both gamma and brightness/contrast according to some fiendish Hamrickian scheme. I still preferred them as separate parameters, but that's the control to twiddle with - in practice it works well - to achieve a scan which does not clip either end of the histogram. You'll also want to set VS white point to 0.01 and black to 0.0.
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Settings
Thanks Maris. I tried that, but it didn't seem to work in one case. I'll give it another shot. Dave - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 5:01 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Settings File-Default Options Maris - Original Message - From: Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Settings | Doing successive previews, I recently found I couldn't revert to the | start over point. How does one do this? | | Dave | | | | | My 7.1.3 has a seperate control for Image Brightness and Gamma. | Image brightness will affect the blacks of the image, Gamma not so | much. | | I often leave Black to .01 or so which results in the black edge of | negs or slide masks going close to 0, I almost always go with Maximum | and do any cropping later. | | It has - the 'image brightness' setting sets both gamma and | brightness/contrast according to some fiendish Hamrickian | scheme. I still | preferred them as separate parameters, but that's the control | to twiddle | with - in practice it works well - to achieve a scan which does | not clip | either end of the histogram. You'll also want to set VS white | point to | 0.01 and black to 0.0. | |
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Herch wrote: However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering. Rafe wrote: I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a better image, all around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V, and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi. Al Bond wrote: I recently decided I needed a smaller take it with me at all times camera as I simply wasn't using my SLR enough and bought an old Minolta CLE rangefinger. Nice sharp lens (with the option of using other Leica or new Voigtlander lenses as well), small and light - and great fun to use. I'm sure there is already digital kit that can get close to the quality but not without much more bulk - or without making a bigger dent in the bank balance (even allowing for the cost of a scanner). And a lot of classic camera gear holds its value more than consumer grade digicams... Don't get me wrong, I like new toys as much as anyone else and have been eyeing up each generation of digicams that come out but nothing yet has the right mix of compactness, quality and value to mak me bite. I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years ago to get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don't shoot in the rain:), but for sheer image quality vs camera size and ease of use there has never been better IMHO. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Kodachrome has better dark storage than E-6. E-6 is better for use in slide projectors, but any valuable transparency should be duped for slide projection anyway. Brian Eno (the musician) points out the most relevant issue regarding the digital vs analogue archiving issue. He said something to the effect that analogue degrades gracefully, digital catastrophically. The idea of re-doing a digital archive every so many years isn't practical in my view. What happens to the archive when you get hit by that bus with your name on it? So many valuable artifacts have lain in obscurity for years before discovery. Current digital will likely not survive that, and the purpose of a true archive is survival beyond the life of the creator. Even badly faded analogue artifacts can be restored, if need be. Once digital is dead, it's dead, Fred. Dave - Original Message - From: laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings I forget which is the case; but Kodachromes only had either longevity with respect to dark storage or longevity with respect to lightfastness as compared to E-6 but not both. While the Kodachrome process is entirely different from E-6 which may stabilize the dyes as you say, it is always possible that there is an inherent limitation in dyes which restricts stability of one type versus another; whereupon the manufacturer has to make compromises. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Unfortunately I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as Kodachromes. The completely different process used means that the dyes can be made more stable. And it looks to me that Kodachrome is slowly on the way out. Soon the only game in town for longevity will be digital re-copied to more modern media and possibly converted to a more modern file format every five years or so... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) wrote: Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Leaf?
Austin Franklin wrote (among other things): I think for around $2k, if you get one complete with Leafset holders, latest firmware (4.1) and in great working condition, nothing can touch it. If you need 4x5, then it's really the only under $7k option I would say. If your max is 120, then you really might want to look at the new Nikon and/or Polaroid. Although I doubt it's as quite as good as a Leaf (never used one), the Agfa T-2500 is also excellent, about $5K, and in overall terms it may be the best 35 to 4x5 film scanner under the Flextight Precision on the current market. A lot of folks like the UMAX 3000, but I don't like the fact film cannot be air mounted with this unit. But if you need 35-4x5, and are on a budget, these are the three to consider IMO. If you're somewhat technically oriented, it's a great scanner. If you're not...I'd recommend not considering one. That sums it up nicley. Dave
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available
I just use 7.1.1 for the first time today and I'm very impressed with the recent improvements to the cleaning and sharpening using Fujichrome 100 on my LS-30. So then, hoping against hope, I scanned one of my problem Kodachromes, but no luck. I isolated the problem to the cleaning function. Without it the Nikon just picks up too much dust, with it certain details look like they've gone through some kind of Photoshop special effects filter. Oh well! Dave - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:53 PM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available I just released VueScan 7.1.2 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 7.1.2 * Improved color and tone when scanning negatives I'm pretty sure this fixes a lot of the problems people have been seeing with negative scans looking flat or dull. You'll probably still need to experiment with Color|Gamma and Color|White point (%) or to do some Photoshop manipulation, but it should be a lot better. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:33:35 -0700 Moreno Polloni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't think anyone is trying to make super critical judgements here. To me the scans need to be better matched before attempting to draw any conclusions about scanner quality. Even that is little help, since the operator may have subtracted information unequally and/or incorrectly from one or both. What we really want to know is the potential for quality, the available envelope, and finding this out is a veritable gumshoe job. How's that gum on your shoes doing these days? g Since you already have an SS4000, I would love to hear your impressions of the LS-4000! (Maybe you could even answer my Kodachrome question:) Dave
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts? (I have been to Wilhelm's site - http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm - but he seems to limit his studies to digital.) Thank, John J. Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and print permanence. He has several books out of the subject. He has since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this information. As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output... When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing is far more stable that inkjet. However, if you use inks and paper types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years. Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a 17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue. He gives higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks. There are some ink and paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any accelerated testing processes. Art My personal feeling is Wilhelm is very excited on a personal level about the recent advent of practical inkjet printing. I think if you ask Wilhelm why he's so interested in inkjet printing he will say: 1) digital photography has the potential for greater accuracy than analogue; 2) inkjet is the digital printing medium of highest practicality; and 3) inkjet printing has considerably greater prospect for long term stability (with pigments and coated watercolor papers) than conventional analogue photographic print materials. He's excited by the fact that for the first time in history there now exists a practical and accurate color photographic printing process that can be said to be truly archival. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure don't see the astonishing difference you're talking about, even when these two images are inspected under high magnification in Photoshop. Really? Maybe it's my monitor (a 14 thoroughly uncalibrated notebook LCD). I don't know what accounts for the difference--maybe the one poster is right in saying it is contrast--but it is most apparent to me in the girl's face. The Leafscan image looks clear and _glossy_, while the Nikon image looks _flat_. To put it differently, the Nikon image looks like a scan, while the Leafscan image looks like a photograph (to my eyes). I don't have the vocabulary or the trained eye to articulate what the difference is or what causes it--but I sure can see it. That's why I was hoping someone here could tell me what it is, and if it could be addressed in Photo Shop so that the Nikon scan would end up looking as good as the Leafscan image after some tweaking. I ask because I'm leaning toward buying the 4000 now, so I'm hoping there's some way to get it to look as good as the Leafscan--cuz that's the sort of scan I'm aiming for (yep, I could always just get a Leafscan 45, but I don't know what I'm doing and figure a 4000 with ICE has a shorter learning curve--and scanning time per image). Thanks, Dan Dan, don't worry, the difference you see has nothing to do with what either scanner can do in some ultimate sense. It's merely a contrast difference, and either scanner could make a scan that looks like the other in the terms of the differences you're seeing. The Leafscan 45 is a very good scanner, but the Nikon will be so much easier to use, and according to ex-Leaf owners, it makes higher quality scans too. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Looks like a case of higher contrast in the Leafscan. Look at and around the girl's hair and you'll see plugged shadows. The highlights on her face are slightly hotter too. The significant difference on this page is between the Howtek and Nikon in the eyes crop. Wow! Dave
Re: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief density math lesson...
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a REAL minimalist. I develop my own film, and make sure it has NO particulate matter on it after it is dry, and put it into ClearFile holders to keep dust off of them, then into a 3 ring SEALED notebook, and into a file cabinet. I use a filtered film drying cabinet. I use compressed air and blow any particulate matter off them before scanning. I am anal about this, I do NOT do any dust spotting in PS unless I have NO choice. I use a Leafscan 45. It has a single ND filter for scanning BW, so I avoid ALL the problems associated with scanning RGB and converting. I always scan at optical resolution of the scanner. I set my setpoints in the scanner driver, set my tonal curve in the scanner driver, and scan. I may make two or three final scans if I don't like something...but I do NO adjustments in PS except image size with no interpolation. My scanner does 16 bit scans and applies the setpoints and tonal curve to the high bit data and returns 8 bit data to me. It really is a simple workflow...and I believe I get fantastic results. I use no USM, nor any other three letter acronym on my scan data. The most I do is use the stamp tool to make up for some defect, possibly a scratch, in the negative. Very cool workflow. I like it. What is your printing workflow? Dave
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
I see the last snips never made it to the list. Did you get them (sent directly to you)? Dave David, would you be kind enough to post the same two images that you did previously, but this time using the unsharp masking you feel best glorifies the Agfa scan.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily
in
the mask layer.
But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
according to processing.
Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as
they
do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as
consistent
as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you
get
to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer
or
lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less
than chrome films.
It's true I don't see a lot of variation in C41 films of the same
type,
but it's not the film which varies, it's the image. The scanning
task is
quite different from scanning slide. With slide, you have a fixed
reference, with neg it's interpretive.
The source of difficulty here is the latitude of C41 and ability to
produce uncorrected results across a wide range of colour
temperature and
exposure which you sort out later. With slide, you have next to no
tolerance. If it's screwed on the film, you aren't going to be able
to do
a great deal with the scan as the wide OD range occupies all, or
nearly
all, of the dynamic range of the scan.
If you always shoot colneg under more or less controlled conditions,
and
place exposure on the same part of the curve (conditions more or
less
imposed by slide) then, yes, I would believe profiling could be done
with
reasonable precision - given a consistent lab.
That was my point. I mentioned shooting in the studio, but outdoors
in sunlight should be about the same.
But the utility of colneg is the amazing ~10stop range, which
enables
exposure to be located however you want on the curve, and allows
enormous
liberties to be taken with illuminant colour, including mixed
sources.
True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or
the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an
accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first
results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really
blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables.
In this scenario, the colneg is only a waypoint on route to the
final
image which exists nowhere except in your head. You absolutely don't
want
a mechanical, invariant translation as you would with
slide+profiles. It
will look horrible, say, to get a 'straight' scan of an image taken
under
flourescent without filtration.
But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the
same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the
chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work.
Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to
establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. So
I *do* want an invarient translation for most work, and perhaps even
as a point of departure in editing difficult material, or at the very
least as a frame of reference. If it really works accurately, time is
saved!
Canned neg profiles may be generally less accurate than dynamic
profiles (?), and part of the perception that neg profiles are useless
may come from this. Practical color management is still so new that I
can imagine a few other reasons why neg profiles might seem useless
most of the time.
You have a lot of freedom to muck about with values, as most images
leave
plenty of headroom once scanned.
DH's suggestion of a ring-around of profiles seems like it maybe a
handy
shortcut from the info locked up in the neg to an image which
approximates
what you were after, at least part of the way - by mapping response
for
film under a variety of conditions.
To restate St Ansel for the C21st 'The negative is the score, the
print is
the performance, and profiles are pianola rolls' :)
And profiteroles served after the performance. :)
I'm sure you know all this stuff anyhow, and do it anyhow ('I am the
colour management' :-) All I'd add is : isn't it curious how much
colour
correction can vary from one neg to the next, even when taken in the
same
place and same time.
Hummm, can't say I've noticed color variations of this sort, in the
darkroom or on the desktop. Maybe later. :)
Dave
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Agfa is definitely softer, no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the results from the two scanners. Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of noise, and perhaps that explains the difference between these scans. The LS-30 scan appears sharper initially, but after working on both files I would have to say first impressions are misleading, the sharpness seems to be an artifact. No matter how I sharpen the LS-30 scan, I can't get results that match the sharpened T-2500 scan for image detail and clarity, and tonal smoothness and sharpness of grain. A good test would be to turn off Device|Auto focus and manually vary the focus on the Nikon. This will give a good indication of whether the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. I don't question the clarity of the dust spots is related to the focus of the scanner. The darkening (exaggeration) of the dust appears to be a function of the infrared channel however, as Rob points out. I have no problem with this either, as long as a dust removal algorithm takes care of it (it does), and I can use the scanner with all Kodachromes and BW film and get results as good or better as with a conventional design (I can't). I have the feeling that Nikon has addressed these problems in the new designs, but I would like to know how effectively before deciding on a next scanner purchase. Both the Polaroid 120 and Nikonscan 8000 appear to be excellent with a slight edge going to the Nikon perhaps. But is the Polaroid better for BW and Kodachrome work? Dave
