[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.5 beta 5 Available
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 09:00 am, you wrote: To reply to my previous post - I found batch scan option under the Device tab - but the device has to be set to Disk, if I select my scanner it goes away! I have a Scanwit 2720 - in Beta 3 it showed up with the scanner selected - Is this a new bug or am I just doing something wrong? /fn I just released VueScan 7.5 beta 5 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 7.5 beta 5 * Added support for Scan Elite II, including multi-sampling * Fixed problem with frame number not displaying on some scanners * Fixed problem with LS-8000 and SS120 and medium format framing * Reduced width of sliders from 100 pixels to 75 pixels Regards, Ed Hamrick --- - 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: VueScan 7.4 Available
Ed, Thanks, I was/am using an ICON on the KDE Desktop to launch vuescan - it is obvously a link. So, I created a simple shell script to cd to the vuescan directory and execute it from there and then linked the ICON to the script. Works great now! /fn On Tuesday 15 January 2002 12:43 am, you wrote: In a message dated 1/15/2002 1:16:30 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just installed 7.4 and still have a problem I had in 7.4 beta... (note the installs were over an existing 7.3x installation - is this related?) Are you using a soft link to VueScan? If so, don't do this (it doesn't work right). Also, make sure vuescan.dat is in the same directory as the vuescan executable. Regards, Ed Hamrick --- - 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: VueScan 7.4 Available
Ed, Just installed 7.4 and still have a problem I had in 7.4 beta... (note the installs were over an existing 7.3x installation - is this related?) Namely, the Negative vendor, Negative brand, and Negative type in the color tab are all empty/blank. System: SuSE Linux 7.3 Pro (Upgraded to Kernel 2.4.16) running KDE3 beta 1 Acer Scanwit 2720S Adaptec 2906 SCSI Card (The ACard that came with the Scanwit doesnt work in Linux!) 1 Ghz Athlon Thunderbird 1 GB Ram Any suggestions? Thanks, Frank On Monday 14 January 2002 04:48 pm, you wrote: I just released VueScan 7.4 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in VueScan 7.4 * Added live update of images and histograms when options are changed * Added spin buttons to increment/decrement options that use sliders * Added Crop|Measurement units to specify pixel, mm, cm or inch units * Added File|Image size option specify size of saved images * Added File|Lock image size to lock crop box to shape of image size * Added File|Save raw file to write raw scan file when saving files * Added File|Save on scan to save files after scan done * Added Prefs|Enable sliders and Prefs|Enable spin buttons * Changed Filter|Infrared clean to affect raw scan file * Changed Filter|Size reduction to affect raw scan file * Changed Prev mem / Scan mem buttons to Refresh and Save buttons * Changed Film color to Film base color * Improved memory allocation on Mac OS when virtual memory off * Fixed problem with sliders jumping a bit when mouse released * Fixed problem with slider for black/white point not going to zero * Fixed problem with uneven increments with some sliders Regards, Ed Hamrick --- - 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: VueScan 7.1 beta for Ed
Well, I have just purchased an extra license for the 7.4 release. It appears that Ed is not planning on charging for this upgrade, but personally I feel guilty getting so much support and so many features added since I purchased the program. I would encourage anyone who can to do the same as a way for us to say thank you to Ed. /fn On Sunday 13 January 2002 05:27 pm, you wrote: In a message dated 1/13/2002 6:41:15 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would it be possible to have this automatic preview as an option, so we can switch it on or off, to revert to the old way? I've added this to Beta 3, which you can download from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html It's the Prefs|Auto refresh option. Regards, Ed Hamrick --- - 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
RE: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
This is an ungrateful thing to say, but in respect to the Acer, I get somewhat darker scans on *underexposed* negs with the native Mira driver. That's because the Vuescan driver (at least the way I've been using it--which is seat-of-the-pants flying, BTW) seems to give a slightly longer exposure than the Mira. This is *great* for underexposed slides and overexposed negs, however, which is where most of my problems are. Best regards--LRA Lynn, I don't think VS controls exposure time on Scanwits directly - they have an autoexposure system with no manual control. However, I agree it appears something Ed is doing appears to result in longer exposures. It would be interesting to know how this happens - maybe Ed could jump in with a theory/explanation? /fn
filmscanners: Skin tones and acer noise
(Jerry, I copied you on this because it appears Alan has a similar issue to yours. I am still trying to get my website updated so I can post the material about correcting images with these problems. But, now that I have seen Alan's scan's I am beginning to think that you and he may have bad or marginal units.) (filmscanners list: I copied the list on this reply to Alan Womack - part of an off line exchange we have had concerning noise in the blue channel of Scanwit scanners. I hope other Scanwit owners will send me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) clips from images in high density/neutral tone areas from thier scanners. It appears some Scanwits have very high noise in the blue channels as shown in the attached examples and if I can collect enough samples maybe we can get ACER's attention. - sorry about being so long winded, it is a personality flaw of mine!) Alan, I agree your 200 (aw fugi 200.tif) looks more like my 800 (fn kodak 800.tif), but if you look at the scans (blue channel) at 600% magnification I see two significant differences: 1. There is a very strong horizontal component in your scan, and I bet these horizontal lines are along the axis of the CCD - ie. perpendicular to the motion of scanning? This is different from Jerry's macro/visible banding which we have called yellow stain, although his scan also shows these same horizontal lines at the micro level (jo clip.tif). 2: Your histogram vs mine (blue channel)! Yours is the second sample I have seen with a sparse/spikey/noisey blue channel histogram like this. The first one came from Jerry Oostrom - his is even worse than yours. I realize that facial tones don't have much blue component, but I would still expect what is there to have a smoother variation. Is your scan of an overexposed negative (or under exposed slide) which would make the emulsion very dense? The issue seems to be the blue (and to some lesser extent green) channels are less sensitve and so end up operating down in the noisey region of the operating curve of the CCD. I want to try an experiment on my scanner, if you could do the same it would be very enlightening. I am going to find a piece of very light blue filter and lay it over the negative and rescan my baddies. The goal is to fool the autoexposure system into increasing the exposure level on the blue channel. (I may have this wrong with negatives, it may need to be red and green filters added - or maybe a neutral?) I don't expect this to work - I expect the light level is not affected, but instead the duration of exposure will be changed - which won't help if the blue channel is down in the noise region as I expect. But if it does work, then this could be a hack to help with very dense film. The idea would be to scan twice, once with and once without the filter, then combine the blue channel from the scan with the filter with the red/green channels from the scan without the filter - argh! I took my scanner apart a while back in hopes that there would be a manual adjustment on the lamp, but alas no luck. Without reverse engineering the circuits around the lamp, I don't think fiddling is going to help. I tried placing a mirror behind the lamp to increase the light though the film, but it made no difference I could detect. My guess is that the only hope is to collect samples from a number of owners of scanwits - if we could collect enough samples to show a distinct set of two groups - bad/marginal (yours), better/okay(mine) - maybe we could get ACER's attention and get some form of fix for the worse set. However, if the samples show a smooth distribution in the amount of noise between owners, then it is probably just normal varition in less expensive components and ACER probably won't do anything except for the worst cases. Also, I don't have access to a densiometer(sp?). Do you? If not maybe we could get someone on the list to test the negatives (yours and mine) and see if you are just outside the specified range of Dmin/Dmax for the machine. In which case, you got a normal scanner, and I (and others) got an exceptional one. As a partial cure - have you tried using a very slight blur on the blue channel? I use about .2 to .3 radius of Gaussian blur on the blue channel when it gets this bad in mine and it seems to help at the expense of a little sharpness. Attached are smaller snips from our scans - more suitable for posting to the mailing list - these show almost no image but at 600% magnifcation they demonstrate the noise characteristics of each. They are labeled: aw fugi 200.tif - Alan's, jo clip.tif (Jerry's) and fn fugi 200.tif and fn kodak 800.tif (Franks/mine). Suggestions - comments? /fn -Original Message- From: Alan Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 1:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Skin tones and acer noise Frank. Your 800 scan looks more like what I get with 200 speed film. Attached is a private label fuji 200, take a look at the blue channel. alan
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
I would be more interested in hearing how the photographs were acquired. I attend a wide variety of auction types, this particular auction was what I would classify as a junk auction. things like boxes of broken brooms, old dishes etc. Typcially this stuff is sold out of storage lockers which people failed to pay the rent on... It was stated that there was no signature. Was it a real auction or a garage sale? It is a real auction, but the source of things being auction is certainly questionable - we (my wife and I) often joke about thinking the auction house raids garbage bins at night! :-) Not to be humorous, but for years people told me that they've seen my photographs at an occasional garage sale, or flea market. That's part of selling your art on the street for over 25 years. Was there any indication of the photos being removed from their mats which might have contained the photographers name and contact information? No indication of tampering on the frames or matting. However, the frames are synthetic (not work) and the matting is not that expensive looking. There was hand written on the back on one set of 4 prints - $100. (Caution here - these low end auctions are known for planting false price tags and other miss leading hints on items before an auction.) How much did you pay for them? Was there any indication of a perceived value to think that you could make a profit from them on eBay? drum roll - the crowd that night was totally not interested in any kind of art - paintings, photos, or anything else - the sell price was $5.00. There is nothing to indicate I will be able to sell them. If they did come from the art show world, I'd like to see a set of scans and maybe I could identify the photographer. I doubt these came from the show world - I am not much of a critic (yet) but they appear to be lower quality than what I have seen in galleries/stores. Composition is good, colors are dull, shadows are blockedup a bit. All sences are local here in the Rocky Mountains. I will send you a link to some scans this week - if they are soemthing you can identify that would be great - but I don't think so... /fn
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
Good idea, Thanks, /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's I believe catalog use (for sales) is usually considered fair use, and protected from copyright infringement. You might wish to place a watermark through the image, so the digital file is not reproducible in any realistic manner. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Technically no; but you can probably get away with it if you make them low resolution thumbnails, since you are using the images to advertise the selling of supposedly legitimate original prints or copy prints which the scans represent and not the scans themselves or prints made from the scans. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Nichols Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:45 PM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Subject: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am not to optimistic. My question is: Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original photographer? TIA, /fn
filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am not to optimistic. My question is: Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original photographer? TIA, /fn
RE: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question
Try going to the Device Manager and removing the device. Then reboot and hopefully the Wizard will show it face asking to install the new hardware, then show it the path to the new drivers. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine (Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a while back, but was deinstalled when I got the 8000. I had a need for it this evening and tried to reinstall it, with no luck.
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
Lynn, I would be glad to contribute the web space and storage for this - I would love to see examples of the terms used by everyone! /fn (email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Dan wrote: Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)? I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but doesn't show pics. Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand words. Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a website, I'd give it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some kind-sprited, web-savvy member will do it? Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
At 5:24 PM -0400 7/19/01, Johnny Deadman wrote: While I like everyone else appreciate the extraordinary effort Ed puts into developing this app, I am frustrated that so little effort is put into the user interface. Human interface design clearly isn't something I too felt teh interface could use some help - and a histogram would be great - even a display only. However, Vuescan has one big benefit to me (besides getting betterdata that requires less work in PS) and that is I can run batches in Vuescan while I am working in PS. The MiraFoto software that came with my scanner is modal in PS and so I have to do one frame at a time. By using Vuescan I can point it at a temp directory and let it scan 6 negatives and start working on them in PS as they are finished. Also, I find that once I have VS setup for a particular set of negatives (by previewing the first) I really don't have to change anything for the entire roll. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
What I didn't understand from the linked images is that under magnification it appeared that there was some sharpening halos around some objects, while the image overall looked a bit soft? (Also, if that is banding, then that appears to be the same problem I am working on with our Scanwits - I agreed, different price points and I would expect the Scanwit to do it and not the Nikon.) Another point, the bands appear to be from single CCD cells, but are then blurred over a couple pixels - anybody else think this is the case? If so, was this a multi-scan? Is the scanner software averaging/interpolating? Does Vuescan support this scanner? If so, I would be very interested in a sample scanned using it. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I am not involved with this thread, and I don't have a Nikon. I do have a low end (Acer Scanwit) and want to comment on this attitude. I don't think anyone questions that you get what you pay for and $3,000 is certainly not going to compete with $30,000. However, basic functionality should be there, and obvious problems should not. Limited Dmin/Dmax, limited resolution, limited consistency, etc. are some of the trade off's you (I) would expect to see. However, if the banding is a result of pushing beyond the capabilities of the hardware in order to support published specifications, then that is false advertising. I have no intention of complaining about banding (yellow stains) in my Scanwit - I expect it for the price. If I had purchased a Nikon 8000, it would go back several times and then permanently for that problem. Also, only by providing feedback (complaints) can companies know what the market wants, and improve. I say, keep them honest. If they say it will do something and it doesn't, you should hold their feet to the fire until they make it right. Also, a few years ago you could say the same thing about printing your own prints using an ink-jet. Now it is accepted as professional quality by many - even with price points of less than $1000. (Some as low as $250) /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example... Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect. Preston wonders: If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some cost $3,000, and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three price-level scanners give the same quality, do you? If your prints sell for hundreds of $, then $30 to $50 for a high-end scan can't be too expensive. Preston Earle, who is now ducking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never happened.---Mark Twain
Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
Well, Thanks for all the suggestions. I have altered my work habits a little based on them. For now I am going to be shooting Fugi HG 100 most of the time until I feel I have most the variables under predictable control. (I will still shoot a roll of Provia 100F occasionally, just for the thrill.) Its great to have a resource like this list where pro's, amateurs, and newbies can share knowledge and experience. I maybe an old fart (51) but I really think most people miss the significance of being able to participate in this knowledge sharing - nothing like this has ever existed in history before and I expect it to have a major impact on society and trades/professions. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount?
Mark, The ascii art reflects the mount and film correctly as I saw it under the scope. But I still think I am seeing image in the ccc area. However, you may be correct, and I agree turning it around will prove the point. I didn't crop anything off of the right side, but vuescan may have... I have already shut everything down here tonight - it is 2:00 AM here, so I will turn it around and rescan tomorrow. Thanks for the info - /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark T. Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 11:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount? At 09:36 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote: ..you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. Yup, I took a couple and looked at them under a microscope at low power and what you describe is definitely what is happening - one side has a slightly smaller aperture. However, this still says the Scanwit is able to see though that one smaller side's edge. I would rephrase that - I think you are still only seeing through the film. My guess is the wider aperture is on the side of the ccd? So at the edge the ccd sees the film very darkly illuminated from the light leaking around the inner edge of the mount. Ie (forgive ASCII art - done in arial, probably won't line up very well in other fonts.. :) | | | | light source | | | | | | | | = slide mount (smaller aperture) | | | \ \ \ leaking light! = film === slide mount (wider aperture) ccd sensor aa bbb ccc (I've left out lenses and other unnecessary items!) So at aa you see your normal image, at bbb you see a weakly illuminated bit of image, and at ccc it should be black (probably cropped out of your sample). To check this theory, just turn the slide around - I reckon the edges will be black. And what the result seems to be is that area has higher contrast with no more noise than the film area next to it. But do you *want* higher contrast? I played with your image, and by selectively fiddling with the different areas, couldn't see any real advantage to the darker area - in fact if anything, the reverse. Is this a Provia slide by the way? If it is, then it looks like your scanner is like mine - I find the noise is just far enough below the max density of most slides to not be a problem, but some Provia's, Velvias and K-Chromes start to push the envelope.. I think the bottom line is that my next scanner will definitely have a manual exposure mode! Agreed. But for the market the Scanwit is aimed at, I can understand their thinking... MarkT.
RE: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount?
Lynn, Others received the clip, it was about 36Kb. The problem must be on your end. /fn Frank, your small snip must have been too big--it didn't come through. Try getting it under 100kb (half that would be better).
RE: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
No, I think I am using way to much - basing it on my screen preview. I am running some tests this weekend looking at printouts at various levels. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 4:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: something I CAN do to it - they are coming out almost perfect. The scariest part so far has been trying to figure out the USM to use. These are Provia 100F slides scanned at 2700 DPI on my Scanwit and they look a bit soft. However, where I normally start getting nervous if I use over 150% at 1.2 radius with threshold of 4 on negatives (Kodak Super 100) here I am up into 250% or more before I see the effect I want - and I seem to have to be more careful to avoid pixelization at those levels. Gad, unsharp mask over 100%? I've been using a radius of 2.0 and only 60%. Is there something I'm seriously missing about USM? Rob
filmscanners: Inkjet Printer List?
Can anyone point me to a good/active mailing list for discussions of ink jet printers (specifically Epson) used to print my scans? That seems off topic for this list... /fn
filmscanners: Getting started question
Hi, I have posted a few times before and received very helpful responses. So, I thought I would ask a real basic question... Background: I am just starting out with both photography and scanning. I am on a very limited budget, so I am using my wife's Canon EOS Rebel 2000 and an Acer Scanwit 2720s. I splurged (way over budget) for Adobe Photoshop 6.0 - figuring I could resell it if I loose interest, or if I go on, it will scale to anything I want to do, and if/when I buy better cameras and scanners (or digital cameras - my dream right now is a Canon D30) it will handle anything I try to do. I am trying to shoot 2 to 3 rolls each weekend and then scan the results. Each time I learn a little more about film, processing (where I get it developed) and scanning and it's limitations, at least with the Scanwit. My approach so far is to buy cheap film at the discount outlets and use the cheapest processing I can find, because I am not interested in selling (or even keeping) the results. I am just trying to understand things like exposure, depth of field, grain, composition etc. Occasionally I will shoot two rolls looking for differences in the film - for example Kodak Gold 100 vs. Fugi Provia 100F, and in these cases I use a good processing lab - at least the shop sells and caters to professionals, so I assume it is better than the grocery store. (And they charge about 4 times more just for developing!) Questions: (from a scanning perspective) 1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or is this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits? 2.Should I be sticking to a single film and learning how to use it and then moving on to other etc.? Help! TIA Frank Nichols
RE: filmscanners: Which Buggy Software?
Darrell, Here is another hit or miss to try. I am running almost the same system (hardware and software) except I have a 1GHz Athlon (and a cheapo scanner.) I recently upgraded from 512Mb ram to 1Gb ram and started experiencing the same types of problems. I exchanges the 512Mb module several times with no improvement. I expect it is my power supply but haven't had time to try a replacement yet - so, try pulling some ram to get down to 512Mb. Not that this is a solution, just a test. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Darrell Wilks Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Which Buggy Software? I have read that NikonTech has told someone they are the only one having problems. This may be just a rumor, or not, so here is my short story. NikonScan 3.1 crashes regularly when saving a scan. Usually I can get at least one scan saved, but then trying to save a second scan sometimes works, occasionally not, a third scan fails to save with greater frequency than a failed second scan save, and a fourth scan save is hit or miss. Anyway, Windows 2000 reports the error (NikonScan has reported errors and will be shut down OK?) clicking okay shuts it down. Restarting NikonScan 3.1 allows me to scan and save a couple more, then crash and restart the app again and so on. My record is 4 saved scans in a row. Liveable but not very good. Startup time for NikonScan 3.1 is horrible. I have P3 800, 1GB ram, U160 HDs, AGP video. All other hardware and software is stable. All drivers and BIOS is up to date. Windows 2000 is SP2. Nikon tech support walked me through scan, with crash and all. Oddly, the tech had me install a generic printer driver and try to scan again. Weird. Of course that didn't work, so we tried deleting and reinstalling this and that, you know, the old maybe the dll files corrupt thing. Finally, got transferred to second level support, but gave up waiting on hold (gotta work sometimes). Will try again later. NikonScan 3.1 is easy to use though slightly quirky (scan window is always on top and must be minimized to see the save window). VueScan has a multitude of settings I'll have to play with more before forming an opinion here. Overall, I really like the application. I have used ScanWizard ProTX (ArtixScan 4000T), and tried the VueScan demo. Hope this info encourages those orphans out there that think they may be the only ones with this problem. Darrell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Winsor Crosby Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: Which Buggy Software? There seems to be some difference in the experience of people using Nikon scanner software. Some people say it is fine. Others complain bitterly about its bugginess with out much more in the way of additional information. Since Nikon provides two software packages, one for the Mac and one for Windows, it might be useful to know the operating systems of those people who offer their experiences one way of the other. Since most software writers seem to write for a particular OS version and then fix it if problems crop up on earlier or later versions, it would also be useful to know which version of the OS is being used by the person sharing their software experience. It may be that many of the individuals who have had problems could solve them with just an OS upgrade if they knew that was the problem. Or if they knew that Nikon software just did not work with their system, they could know to get another scanner or third party software. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Getting started question
snip I know you said your budget was limited, but why not keep an eye out for a secondhand camera body (with the same lens mount), and keep the best camera loaded with better film? snip MarkT I know - I attend a lot of auctions and last night I passed on a Pentax Spotmatic with a 1.4/50mm lense in mint condition for $100 - I could just kick myself! However, I did pick up a Konica 1 Rangefinder (MIOJ about 1950 based on serial number) in fine/working condition for $15! I think that was the steal of the night. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Getting started question
snip For once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, I always use fresh film but for screwing around or more casual shooting, I'll use outdated film. If you shop around, you should be able to buy it for half price (or less ... over the past four months, I've successfully purchased 120 rolls of Fuji Provia 120 for a little over $1/roll, delivered. I bought 48 of those rolls on eBay so you might check there as well as at your local Pro shops and labs. snip Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ That is a great suggestion! I would never have thought of it - I am off to eBay and Google! I would love to be able to practice while using Provia 100F! /fn
RE: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount?
IMHO, I think that you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. The Pakon mount I am currently looking at has a slightly larger aperture on one side - if you study the slide closely from both sides I think you will see the effect I mean. Yup, I took a couple and looked at them under a microscope at low power and what you describe is definitely what is happening - one side has a slightly smaller aperture. However, this still says the Scanwit is able to see though that one smaller side's edge. And what the result seems to be is that area has higher contrast with no more noise than the film area next to it. I think the bottom line is that my next scanner will definitely have a manual exposure mode! /fn
RE: filmscanners: Getting started question
snip I wish I had the discipline to shoot that much for practice's sake. I could certainly use it. Pat After one roll of Provia 100F and a earlier suggestion that I can buy it out-of-date for less than consumer negative film, I think that is the way I am going to go. I need to find someone locally in Denver that can develop it for me - the shop I am using sends it out and it takes a week - I hate waiting! (I wish I could afford real digital!) As for discipline, not me! In order to pursue this with my wife's blessing I had to come up with some creative way to practice and spend more time with her. Since we both enjoy walking in parks/mountains etc. and we live in Denver, we go to parks (or the mountains - just one hour away) every weekend and I spend time with her and shoot while she is chasing a duck or something! A nice feature of Denver is they have literally hundreds of very well maintained-wooded parks - almost every neighborhood has one. So we are making a list and have challenged ourselves to shoot every park in Denver! /fn
RE: filmscanners: Getting started question
just takes longer to learn how to scan negs with good consistent results. --James Hill I will second that - using negatives with Mirafoto it seems like I had to work forever on every scan, then with Vuescan it was just 1/2 forever (maybe 1/4) :-). But scanning the slides I am spending most of my time just looking for something I CAN do to it - they are coming out almost perfect. The scariest part so far has been trying to figure out the USM to use. These are Provia 100F slides scanned at 2700 DPI on my Scanwit and they look a bit soft. However, where I normally start getting nervous if I use over 150% at 1.2 radius with threshold of 4 on negatives (Kodak Super 100) here I am up into 250% or more before I see the effect I want - and I seem to have to be more careful to avoid pixelization at those levels. /fn
RE: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000
I use a Scanwit 2720 and Vuescan with Multipass scanning and the alignment appears to be perfect. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Herm Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000 You can still do multiscanning with Vuescan, but I prefer to digitally align the images using a second program called Picture Window. Registration is not perfect in subsequent Scanwit scans, so multiscaning will slightly blurr the image. Here is the link for Picture Window: http://www.dl-c.com/aboutpw.html The program can also be used to seamless stitch images together to form a panorama. mahimahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My cheap Acer 2720s produces realistic colors without much adjustment, but I miss the multiple scanning features found in Silverfast AI. If Lasersoft has decided to give up on the LS1000, I hope that a version may soon be available for the Acer. Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
RE: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000
I am very picky - I checked several times at 1200% magnification and I saw no vertical or horizontal offsets visible at the pixel level. The reason I said appears is that I assume there is some slack or play in the transport mechanism and perfect can not be achivied. The reason I was skeptical was I tried using multipass scanning on a flatbed (HP5370) and saw the offset effect. Since the offset was repeatable I suggested to ED H (Vuescan) that he include an option to allow the user to input an offset value for subsequent passes. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Herm Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast and LS1000 appears is the key word, I do astrophotography and even the slightest miss alignment will show double stars in the final product. It really depends on how picky you are. Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use a Scanwit 2720 and Vuescan with Multipass scanning and the alignment appears to be perfect. /fn Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
I find that the default gama of 2.2 is too high for most of my scans - try lowering the gama. I use 1.5 to 1.8 normally. Also, the white point % determines what percentage of pixels in the image are at 255/1024... (max value). So I normally set this to 0.05 and adjust in Photoshop where I have a histogram to se whats going on. /fn (Newbie alert: Above is based on total ignorance...) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan Schwartz Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:07 AM To: Filmscanners (E-mail) Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. I am not sure I understand the settings correctly in VueScan. My scanned images are showing a lot of burned out highlights. The Photoshop histogram shows a lot of bright pixel clipping off the the right side of the histogram, confirmed by Option_clicking the white triangle. I tried scanning in both white balance and autolevels. The Help information says that I would be best with autolevels for this type image. Looking at other high brightness images, it appears I am getting a significant amount of clipping if I leave the white point setting at 0.5%. Even at white point set to 0.0%, there is a small amount of white pixel clipping. I am not clear what is accomplished by having the white point setting defaulted to 0.5%. One other thing the histogram shows: across the top of the histogram, even before I make any level adjustment, I am seeing about a dozen or so whiskers. I understand why these show up after levels adjustments, but I am not clear why I am seeing them on the unadjust image. This clipping and the whiskers are not showing up when I scan with Polaroid's software. Stan Schwartz www.tallgrassimages.com
RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000
Stan, Your computer (and most programs) can't deal with 12 bit packages of data, so the program is converting it to the next larger package and pading the top 4 bits for you. This has no affect of the image data - just just have 3 quarts and the closest bottle it can find is a gallon. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan Schwartz Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 Thanks. What's OTT? Also, I am actually scanning at 12-bits; that's the spec on the SS4000. PS treats the image like a 16-bit. Is that introducing any problem? Any idea what the fairly evenly spaced whiskers on the histogram represent? By the way, I am not able to access your website. I am getting an announcement message from the ISP, it seems. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan and white pixel clipping SS4000 On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 11:06:56 -0500 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am making a scan of an array of bright azaleas using VueScan and an SS4000. I am scanning at 48-bits. Try a white point setting of 0.01% (0.0% is usually OTT), and adjust Color|Image Brightness to a smaller number to give a duller, greyer preview (hit Prev Mem after adjusting). EG, if currently 1.0, try 0.8 or so. This will avoid the clipping, and you can then adjust levels precisely in PS. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
Lynn, Actually the unit is very accessable. There would be no parts left over in reassembly. The cover comes off after removing two screws from the base. (Just use a good screw driver to remove the screws so there is no incriminating evidence - like rounded screw slots to void the warranty.) In side everything is visible and there is no further disassembly required. Of course the CCD assembly appears to be monolithic, like I said, I don't see anyway into it easily. Also, I was not completely accurate before - I took the cover off again this morning to check for any possible adjustments on the lamp - there are NO adjustsments available in the UNIT. There are several movements in the unit. 1. The carrier is moved in and out for coarse alignment to the frame. 2. The CCD assembly/Lamp then moves horizontally for the fine movement while scanning. 3. The CCD assembly moves horizonally closer and further from the carrier assembly for focusing. I will take a picture and get it posted on my website. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Hi Frank, OK, then that would mean that the sensor array is vertical to the line of travel, and the scan is horizontal, as we thought, and that makes sense. Now optics *could* cause light drop-off, but frankly I don't quite understand how that mechanism works, either. I'd almost have to see it--and conemplating that, what I *see* is a part or two left over after I've re-assembled my Scanwit! ;-) (I actually *did* that with an electric typewriter, once. For some reason, it still worked! :-)) Best regards, and keep us plugged in--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:59:52 -0600 Lynn, No, the light source and the CCD remain stationary while the carrier moves past. The hot center is along the axis of movement - ie. if you held a paint brush against the negative and moved the negative horizontally past it you would end up with a stripe along the negative where the brush wiped. So, the darker stripes along the edges are not a function of the movement. I still think the ultimate problem here is in the optics - it just looks too much like a dispersion or defraction problem. However, I don't think it is defective (in the broken sense) just inexpensive. And so, we need to learn how to minimize the effect on those photos that exagerate the problem. I have hopes of finding out how VS controls the scanner differently and then being able to make adjustments to the scanning when needed to reduce this. More to come.. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Frank wrote: The light source is a single small light tube (3/16 x 2 1/2 about) and it is masked off via a slot so only the center 1 inch or so is used to illuminate the film. So you're saying, Frank, that the light source and the CCD array are traveling in tandem--do I understand it so far? If this is the case, could the problem be that the elements are not traversing *far* enough to make a fully-lighted and/or fully sensed scan? The problem remains: a hot center and a slightly cooler periphery, in what would appear to be Kelvins. That still sounds like a light problem--although I couldn't venture as to exactly what's happening. And I can't visualize how the sensor array is arranged, or how far it travels. I'll admit that I have neither the technical know-how nor the intestinal fortitude to take my Scanwit apart, so thanks for doing this. It's clear that the techs at Acer (or anywhere else, for that matter) are not going to volunteer the information. Best regards--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:38:01 -0600 Brief update: I decided to take my Scanwit apart last night to see what the optics look like. The design is much simpler than I had imaged. The light source is a single small light tube (3/16 x 2 1/2 about) and it is masked off via a slot so only the center 1 inch or so is used to illuminate the film. This eliminates any spreading lenses that I suspected would be the cause of the yellow stain. The CCD package appears to be a monolith assembly with integrated focusing - I dont knowif it can be disassembler, so I left it alone. This means the problem originates within that CCD assembly - whether in optics or electrical I can't say. Since others have also reported the yellow stain, I am now going to make the assuption
RE: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
A very good place to get information on size and resolution (and much more) is: http://www.scantips.com /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rick Decker Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution I just bought a Epson 1270SU. Is there a formula for picking density and output size based on input size and projected print size. I scan 6x7 and will print either 8x10 or 11x14 And I scan 35mm and will print either 8x(10/12) or 11x(14/16) If I specify my output size, how do I decide what density to pick? Thanks Rick Decker
RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
Lynn, No, the light source and the CCD remain stationary while the carrier moves past. The hot center is along the axis of movement - ie. if you held a paint brush against the negative and moved the negative horizontally past it you would end up with a stripe along the negative where the brush wiped. So, the darker stripes along the edges are not a function of the movement. I still think the ultimate problem here is in the optics - it just looks too much like a dispersion or defraction problem. However, I don't think it is defective (in the broken sense) just inexpensive. And so, we need to learn how to minimize the effect on those photos that exagerate the problem. I have hopes of finding out how VS controls the scanner differently and then being able to make adjustments to the scanning when needed to reduce this. More to come.. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Frank wrote: The light source is a single small light tube (3/16 x 2 1/2 about) and it is masked off via a slot so only the center 1 inch or so is used to illuminate the film. So you're saying, Frank, that the light source and the CCD array are traveling in tandem--do I understand it so far? If this is the case, could the problem be that the elements are not traversing *far* enough to make a fully-lighted and/or fully sensed scan? The problem remains: a hot center and a slightly cooler periphery, in what would appear to be Kelvins. That still sounds like a light problem--although I couldn't venture as to exactly what's happening. And I can't visualize how the sensor array is arranged, or how far it travels. I'll admit that I have neither the technical know-how nor the intestinal fortitude to take my Scanwit apart, so thanks for doing this. It's clear that the techs at Acer (or anywhere else, for that matter) are not going to volunteer the information. Best regards--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:38:01 -0600 Brief update: I decided to take my Scanwit apart last night to see what the optics look like. The design is much simpler than I had imaged. The light source is a single small light tube (3/16 x 2 1/2 about) and it is masked off via a slot so only the center 1 inch or so is used to illuminate the film. This eliminates any spreading lenses that I suspected would be the cause of the yellow stain. The CCD package appears to be a monolith assembly with integrated focusing - I dont knowif it can be disassembler, so I left it alone. This means the problem originates within that CCD assembly - whether in optics or electrical I can't say. Since others have also reported the yellow stain, I am now going to make the assuption it is inherent in the design and is not a broken unit. Therefore I will be focusing on ways to correct the stain. Tonight I will post my first crude method on the website. (Jerry, yes I will take a shot at you car picture and send you the results, I may need the original - 2700 DPI image. Could you send it to my web site if I give you a password?) /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Oostrom, Jerry Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:57 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) -Original Message- From: Alan Tyson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain) [Oostrom, Jerry] [] So if it's only occasionally a problem, don't worry. You can got a lot of conventional prints made from your negs for the difference in cost between the Scanwit and anything else that's worth having. Some negatives have always been difficult to print. The mistake occurred at the moment the button was pressed, not when the scanner was bought. [Oostrom, Jerry] If only it were an occasional problem for me :-( _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Title: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED I took at look at the detail comparison crops (of the label) in Photoshop at 1200%. The SS120 has much smoother transitions in colors (softer?) while the Nikon 8000ED has sharper variations between pixels. I converted both to greyscale and measured the levels at various points and the SS120 seems to have slightly higher contrast. Which would explain why it appears to me that the SS120 shows slightly more grain. Noise levels in both appear to be quite low - I am green with envy (I expect the jpeg compression affected both about the same...) /fn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wilson, PaulSent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:51 PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED The Nikon does seem marginally sharper but the Polaroid seems to have better shadow detail (lower right side of the uncropped shot). However, it is a little tough to tell from the small .jpg. Lawrence, I assume you'll post more conclusions when you have them. Unfortunately, my SS120 won't be here until Monday. Paul Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 781-768-2410 Gómez Internet Quality Measurement http://www.gomez.com -Original Message- From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED I just posted a set of camparison scans by a SS120 and an 8000ED to my site at http://www.lwsphoto.com/scan%20tests.htm These are not a final conclusions, they are simply examples I am a bit surprised by the results however. Lawrence
RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
WARNING: The following is a rather long discussion of the yellow stain effect seen on ACER Scanwit 2720s reported here a week or so ago. I am posting this in hopes of getting more details on the actual working of the scanwit from someone in the know - such as optics, sensor design, etc. If you don't have a Scanwit or if you don't have this problem you may want skip these ramblings of a somewhat inept newbie... :-) ... I spent a full day Wednesday running scans using both VS and Mira and believe I am closing in on what is going on. However, I still don't know if the issue is with a limited number of Scanwit's or is a general characteristic of the units. (If you own a scanwit, please look at some sky's and let me know if you see this Yellow stain effect at all!) I have notified ACER's tech support via email (in the US) and I am hoping they will reply. Meanwhile, where I am right now is this. On my unit (and Jerry's) it appears that the light is brighter at the center of the negatives (I am looking at negatives for now - I will look into slides this weekend) than it is on the edges. While there appears to be a slight difference on the short edges, the dominant effect is seen on the long edges. I have not verified yet if the scanwit scans vertically (up and down in relation to the carrier) or horizontally - but I am working on the assumption that it scans horizontally. The result could be characterized like this: 2332 2332 3443 3443 3443 3443 3443 3443 2323 2332 The numbers represent intensity of light getting to the CCDs on a scan of clear film. They do not represent actual or relative intensity - just the general pattern of darker on the edges. This effect is very minor. It is only seen when the density of the image causes the light to be attenuated to the point of reaching the threshold of sensitivity of the CCD's. It also appears that the sensing of blue is more affected than other colors (or the optics in the scanwit attenuate the blue at the edges) - I don't know if Scanwith uses separate sensors for each color or reuses the sensors with different filters - if they use separate sensors, then I would say the blue sensors are slightly less sensitive than the red and green at low light levels. If they use filters, then I would say the filter for blue attenuates the light slightly more than the red and green filters - resulting in a lower signal level. Just like the EV curve for film, semiconductors (CCDs) have an operational characteristic curve which has a linear range and a low knee and I high plateau. It is desired to keep devices operating in the linear portion of the curve. When the light falling on a sensor is less than some threshold unique to each sensor it will turn off (just before it turns off it will blink on and off randomly resulting is random low level noise). Slightly more than this and the device will behave in a non-linear fashion, slightly more yet and it will begin operating in a linear fashion. Since each sensor's absolute sensitivity is slightly different there is a very small range of light values which will result in some of the sensors being on and some being off. This is my theory on explaining the 1 pixel wide lines I am seeing in my (and Jerry's) scans. (I have also seen these lines in scan's of the Q60 target on Ed. H's site from more expensive scanners - although you have to look closely and use some imagination to connect the dots.) These occur only in areas of extreme density or lack of density - i.e.. at extreme points on the operational curve of the device.) The yellow stain appears to be a function of operating the sensors in the non-linear portion of the bottom of the sensors curve. What I think is happening is that this non-linear portion of the curve is slightly higher in the blue sensors (they are less sensitive) than in the red and green sensors. So, when you scan a negative that has a very dense area (bright sky) the blue begins to have less output relative to the red and green at the same light intensity levels. This would result in an overall color shift in areas of extreme density towards yellow (less blue) in skies while the rest of the image remained correct. I find that I need to add a touch of blue in the highlight of my scans using the curves tool to accurately reproduce the scene. I have tested this by taking a picture of a Gretag/Mcbeth chart and scanning the resulting negative. The highlights tend to be slightly low in blue - this
RE: filmscanners: Ralph Gibson
Web Surfing tip: Next time you want to read a site which has used the artistic reversed type (white on black, yellow on brown, etc.) click and drag to select the article - selection reverses the type and background making it much easier to read. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Ralph Gibson On 7/3/01 6:58, Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We just interviewed Ralph Gibson on June 19th. Check it out: http://www.bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm Mikel Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added: And a superb interview it is. Congratulations. Mike Preston adds: It may be a great article, but with white type reversed out of the black background it is all but impossible to read. Wouldn't black type on a white background be just as attractive? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
I followed up with some observations to the thread originally posted as Yellow Stain. There were some very informative follow ups to my post (thank you!) which caused me to look further into the issue of yellow stains of on the edges of scans from ACER Scanwit 2720s. First I need to say I was wrong in my original post where I stated these stains did not appear in my scans. I have now produced scans with this effect and I am now distressed by what I see. Second, this issue may also relate to the on going discussion around grain aliasing. See the web page below for example images. Instead of posting everything I did and samples here, I have put the images and dialog on a web page at http://www.theNichols.net/scanner and I hope some of you will take the time to look at it and see if you have the same issues with your scanner! I also hope someone from ACER will take a look and respond - while the Scanwit is capable of producing good scans from good negatives, I think either I have a broken unit, or they have some problems in their auto-exposure control system. Frank Nichols (Newbie - and probably completely confused - but I am not sure.)
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan
True, But the digital zooming will permit the use of very high quality prime lenses, since the need for a zoom lense will be reduced. /fn But! Digital zooming will reveal optical limitations. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
I wonder if it would be posisble to create a randomized pattern of sensors on a CCD/CMOS chip? /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera SNIP Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is what all lenses strive toward. If any type of resolution lowering were to be required it would be done via electronic means. Keep in mind film also has a sampling rate, although it is somewhat more randomized and right now, still finer than most electronic sensors made available for mere mortals. No, once you have aliased info in digital form it is indistingusible from real data. Consider stripes that are .6 of the sensor frequency, they will alias to .1 of said frequency and they cannot be distinguished from such a pattern. It is precisely the randomized nature of film that alaising does not occur. There is no grid, so there is nothing to beat against, so to speak. Art
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Robert, I understand your hesitancy, however, you make several assumptions that I didnt. 1. SNR remains at todays levels. 2. Sensitivity remains at todays levels. 3. The array would be small - why not a 4 x 6 with a 10x increase in density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I didn't slip a decimal point.) Or even an 8x10? In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the increase over the years has not just occurred in dimensions, but in performance (speed), power requirements, etc. I will stand by my prediction and be here in 5 years to say I told you so! :-) /fn btw: To paraphrase Robert Heinlein technology will always advance faster than predictions -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera --- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Based on the advances in RAM technology over the past 10 years I am predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too distant future (5 years or less). The significance of this camera will be a drastic reduction is the required size of lenses by using software digital zooming - this will be driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and huge - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). Assuming that density for memory increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months you will have less then 2*2*2*2=16 times more in 5 years. Assuming that CMOS sensors scale at the same rate we will have 16MPixel*16=256MPixel in 6 years. That is considerable less then 1 GPixel and is still on the high side. Even if it would be possible to get 1 GPixel I still don't think we would have get it. The problem is that the more pixels you squeeze in the same area the smaller the size of the pixel gets. Kind of like getting an extremly slow film. So in order to get a usable output you would need very long exposure times. If you don't then your SNR (Signal-to-Noise-Ratio) will be very low resulting in bad images. That is even more true if you want to decrease the size of the imager. But that's not all. With such high resolution the requirement for lenses will be extremly high. If you really want to take avantage of a GPixel imager whose size is fairly small then you will need lenses with huge lpmm. For all these reasons and many more I do not believe we will get 1 GPixel in 5 years or less. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
filmscanners: Film grain vs 2700 DPI scan resolution
I am a complete newbie at this photography/scanning stuff. After playing with my camera, flatbed scanner and new Scanwit for a couple months now, I have started to get a bit more serious about understanding what I am doing. This week I shot some pictures using FUGI Super HG 200 bracketing the exposure by 1 stop on either side of that recommended by the AE in my camera (don't laugh - its my wifes Canon EOS Rebel 2000 w/EF 35-80mm, 1.4-5.6 lense set at about 50mm w/UV Filter). These were noon time - bright sun light with hard shadows - shots. I had the film processed at a better camera shop and I then scanned them in using Vuescan 7.1.4 and my Scanwith 2720S. Looking at the images I see the effect I expected in brightness. I also see what appears to be more grain in the underexposured images and less grain in the over exposed images. Neither the low or high bracket shots loose detail in shadows or highlights (the scenes I chose have a relatively narrow f stop range of about 5 to 6 stops, ie., no hard shadows and no bright sky.) Here are my questions: 1. With 200 film, is the grain large enough for the 2700 DPI to record it? If so could some one describe it (or email me a couple scan clips showing examples?) 2. Would you expect 1 stop down to be enough to see serious increase in grain in 200 film in these conditions? This weekend I am going to repeat the tests with a couple rolls of FUGI Provia 100F to see if the noise I am seeing FUGI 200 goes away. Thanks, /fn Newbie and proud of it!
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Based on the advances in RAM technology over the past 10 years I am predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too distant future (5 years or less). The significance of this camera will be a drastic reduction is the required size of lenses by using software digital zooming - this will be driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and "huge" - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). /fn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch NitikmanSent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:56 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 cameraDan, I don't know how old you are, and what is your tolerance for lugging heavy stuff. 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. I am not carrying a pocket camera, but my main tool is a Pentax ZX-5N/MZ-5N, with a Sigma 28-105, f:2.8-4 lens. A gadget bag with a fairly light 80-200 zoom, plus film and miscellaneous is the rest of my kit. If I try to carry that stuff on my shoulder, the shoulder and neck start to ache. As part of your search criteria, ask yourself how much weight you will be wanting to lug on a field trip. HerschAt 04:37 PM 06/29/2001, you wrote: Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on this list. :)It's a pivotal time, and it makes buying decisions more difficult than ever.Right now I _don't_ have a bunch of lenses and cameras (well, not entirelytrue: I have an M6, Hexar RF, and three Leica M lenses, which is investmentenough, I suppose), but I'm in the market both for an SLR kit (for macro,telephoto and zoom lenses) and a digital darkroom setup (PC, scanner,software, printers, etc.).I figure on spending $10-20k when all is said and done (spaced out over aperiod of 2-3 years). I'm not opposed to spending $3k of that on a veryhigh quality film scanner, and several thousand for a top-notch SLR and prolenses. But I have to wonder if I wouldn't be better off combining thoseexpenses and getting a Nikon D1x, or (better still) waiting another fewmonths to see what Canon and others have to offer. With the near termpossibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, Ihave to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now.Dan
RE: filmscanners: On dust
I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step. I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. It seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had any comments on if it is a gimmick (any soft brush would work) I assume the plutonium qty is low enough not to think about, it is there just to create a slight charge on the bristles. I also use a Leland CO2 The CO2 Power Source instead of canned air - since I read so many warning about the propellents in canned air. I am looking for a good/cheap/small air compressor with oil and water traps. But in the meantime the CO2 seems to work well and using the brush first I find I need very little CO2 to finish. Using these I have found that I have almost completely eliminated dust in my scans. And I found that many cases that I thought previously were scratches were in fact dirt - the PEC-12 wiping does wonders. (Oh yeah, I moved a small - 16x12x6 - HEPA air filter onto my desk next to my scanwit!) Any comments? /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tflash Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: On dust on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote: I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and you don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot whilst scanning the next slide. There is much discussion of dust, with little on removal. I mean physically removing it, not digitally. I use Ilford Antistaticum cloths (about $5 - $6 each, at your finer photo stores - ant photo store really) to gently rub both sides of the film. Then a spray on both sides with canned air, and I get very few dust marks. I scan with a Leaf, which Austin claims keeps dust from settling on the film (you judge the impatiality of that one. ;-)) but I used the same technique in the wet darkroom with similarly good results. I was also a custom printer (silver BW) in two labs which also used these cloths. They're an industry standard. HTH, Todd
RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Hi, I am a total newbie at this. I thought I would take a look at these to see what I could learn. With that in mind, here are some observations I made playing with the images. Maybe someone could correct my assumptions! 1. I took the raw data and rescanned it using Vuescan 7.1.3. a. I adjusted the gama down to 1.0(and then several steps up through 1.8. b. I left the black point on auto and adjusted the black point % from 0 to 10% in various steps. c. I set the white point to 1% and left auto-white point checked. d. I tried various compensation modes (auto-levels, white balance, etc.) Observations: The raw scan is low resolution, so I ignored the grainy appearance. The image appears to be very over exposed - which I believe you mentioned. I found raising the black point and white point % recovered most of the contrast and combined with the gamma correction the color intensity/range was comparable to the scan of the print. While you mention that the scan has less color information than the print, I found just the opposite. I found lots of color info buried in there - hiding. And as I would expect the dynamic range of the scanwit scan is much greater than the photo scan. In the RAW data I saw much more detail in both highlight and shadows (look at the road and the strips painted on it - they are there in the scan and burned out in the photo.) It looks like the printer drove the contrast way up to compensate for the over exposure and lost almost all highlights. The Yellow stain is not just on one side, but is in fact on all four sides, with the left and right being worse than the top and bottom. If you darken the image enough you can see a definite ring about 10-15% of the image width all the way around. With the yellow being worse on the sides, my first impression was that the negative was not flat, but curved in the neg holder and the halo of yellow was a result of the curvature - either focus, refraction, or something... A second thought I had was that it appeared as if the light source in the scanner was focused into a stripe on the center of the negative instead of an even diffusion. Being yellow, it would indicate the blue CCD sensors were less sensitive to low light levels than the red and green. (Does anyone know if this is a characteristic of blue CCD sensors in other scanners?) On the banding what I saw was a series of vertical broken yellow stripes 1 pixel wide. Is this what you are refering to as banding? Again, I am a newbie and dont always understand or see things that others know from experience. The broken/dashed stripes of yellow appear only in the area with the overall yellow cast. I have seen this affect before in scans from my flatbed scanner on over exposed 400/800 ISO film and on my scanwit on overexposed Kodax Gold 400/6. In researching this on the web I happened to look at the example Q60 scans on Ed H's Vuescan page and noticed similar stripes (banding) on what were considered Good scans. I wonder if I am seeing things, or if this is a trait of CCD scanners in very dense areas (ie. is this CCD noise from low signal conditions?) 2. I took the raw data into PS 6.0.1 and played with it for a while. The things I saw in Vuescan appeared the same in PS. I was able to achieve reasonable color and image contrast, but color balance eluded me. I came close using a horizontal gradient to modulate the blue layer - this came close to canceling the effects, but was not a perfect match, so the results were still not usable. About that time my wife came home from work and made me go out to eat with her. So, I couldnt do any more experiments. Conclusions: 1. I have spent about 6 to 8 hours a day for the past few weeks reading everything I can find on the internet about scanning. It is almost universally agreed that scanning film faster than 200 on a 2700 DPI scanner is a real challenge. Several different theories exist as to why, I find the idea of grain aliasing to be very convincing. This is the idea that negatives are really a digital medium (the image is a series of random small dots [grain?] - not a continous tone) and when you combine sets of digital data (the scanning is digital dots) where the data content of the two sets is close (or a harmonic) to the same frequency (number of dots per inch) they will interfer with each other and create artificial lower frequency dots (bigger and lower DPI.) This certainly would explain why in my case I can see much grainier scans from negatives when compared to prints from the same negative from the grocery store developer. I think part of what you are seeing is this effect in the denser areas. I am changing to using 100 and 200 film almost exclusively now with good results. 2. The scan is NOT typical of what I am seeing from my Scanwit 2720 on negatives (400ISO). There is a definite yellow/orange cast around the outer edge of the image. You do indicate that you are seeing the banding/stripes in other scans in light areas on negatives
RE: filmscanners: On dust
whoops! Boy do I feel stupid he says as he wipes the egg off his face! /fn Newbie and Proud of it! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Isaac Crawford Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: On dust Frank Nichols wrote: I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step. I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. Just for clarity, its polonium, not plutonium... I don't think there is a safe qty of plutonium...:-) Isaac It seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had any comments on if it is a gimmick (any soft brush would work) I assume the plutonium qty is low enough not to think about, it is there just to create a slight charge on the bristles. I also use a Leland CO2 The CO2 Power Source instead of canned air - since I read so many warning about the propellents in canned air. I am looking for a good/cheap/small air compressor with oil and water traps. But in the meantime the CO2 seems to work well and using the brush first I find I need very little CO2 to finish. Using these I have found that I have almost completely eliminated dust in my scans. And I found that many cases that I thought previously were scratches were in fact dirt - the PEC-12 wiping does wonders. (Oh yeah, I moved a small - 16x12x6 - HEPA air filter onto my desk next to my scanwit!) Any comments? /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tflash Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: On dust on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote: I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and you don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot whilst scanning the next slide. There is much discussion of dust, with little on removal. I mean physically removing it, not digitally. I use Ilford Antistaticum cloths (about $5 - $6 each, at your finer photo stores - ant photo store really) to gently rub both sides of the film. Then a spray on both sides with canned air, and I get very few dust marks. I scan with a Leaf, which Austin claims keeps dust from settling on the film (you judge the impatiality of that one. ;-)) but I used the same technique in the wet darkroom with similarly good results. I was also a custom printer (silver BW) in two labs which also used these cloths. They're an industry standard. HTH, Todd
RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, /fn ps: I picked up a box of european travel/tourist junk (maps, postcards, etc.) from an auction tonight, and found a couple hundred commerical slides in the bottom! These are from the late 70's and early 80's. THey are all in the original boxes/pouches - I have started scanning them in for fun and practice and the images are fantastic (to a lame newbie like me!) I am surprised the color has survived this long. I guess being in a storage container for the past 15 years didn't hurt them! I won't be getting too much sleep tonight - this is just way to much fun! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Womack Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:49 PM To: Majordomo leben.com Subject: re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem I've never had this happen, only two thoughts come to mind. The clips on the film carrier are not CLIPPED tightly, double squeeze them to make sure. Defective. Check the film strip holders and if those are tight, exchange it! alan Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I will get a different frame back - ie. selecting 4 returns 5. This also occurs when batch scanning - ie. I will only get 3 of the 4 frames and a blank. I have tried both MiraPhoto and Vuescan when this occurs and it is repeatable in both (it happens every time) once it starts happening. I don't see any obvious sequence that leads to it. I somes have scanned in 10 to 15 strips with no problem. Once the problem occurs it is repeatable 100% until I turn the Scanwit off and back on. I have tried both with and without a SCSI terminator. Any suggestions before contact Tech Support? (I called tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour before I gave up.) Frank Nichols Newbie - and proud of it! Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Lynn, Last first, I have read everything on the Photoscientia site twice and expect I will again. I first got interested in scanning/digital photo editing when I bought an HP 5370 flatbed (1200dpi) and tried to scan some negatives. There is NO comparison between that and the Scanwit. However, I have to take exception with almost everyone everywhere. For printing at 5x7 scanning negs from a 1200dpi flatbed works. I have compared some printouts (at 5x7) using both the Scanwit and the HP and there is a difference, but the unclean masses (my wife and neighbors) don't notice even though if both printouts are shown side by side then the Scanwith image always wins. For me the difference is: 1. Cleaner data to work with. 2. More resolution means I can do more cropping. 3. I can print at 8x10 when I get the urge. 4. Vuescan works with both, but multipass scanning on the HP has registration problems (ie. looks like a double exposure.) and multipass scanning on the scanwit results in data that is, to this newbie, amazingly clean. I have only been at this for a couple months now, but it is a lot of fun! I really got a kick out of my neighbors face when I returned a printout of her an her new grandson. The picture had been a digital snapshot in a kitchen with peeling paint, dirty dishes, etc... I removed the background and added a studio blurred color background, enhanced the color and lighting, and then took about 20 years of her face (soften wrinkles, remove spots, etc.!) Anyway, back to the point, my next major challenge is color management. I spent about the first 6 weeks getting prints with muddy colors and a cyan cast. Then I discovered sRGB. I scan in sRGB, work in PS in sRGB and print to my Epson 980 in sRGB and the match to my monitor is almost perfect. However, reading the posts here recently it appears I may be giving up some gamat doing that, so my next steps are: 1. Get a calibration system - with a spyder. 2. Get a new printer (looking for an Epson 1270 or 1280) 3. Figure out what the max gamat I can get from the printer and how to get it to match my monitor. Thanks for your help - sorry for taking up the bandwidth! /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem Well I'll be damned. ;-) I guess I should have remembered you were a Newbie, but anytime I've ever done that (not secured the center section, that is), the mechanism would start to load and then sit there and grunt. OK, I've learned that not all Scanwits are equal (as I had suspected). :-) My 42-year-old slides (mostly) did fine on a Scanwit. For those which didn't, Vuescan was a real help. BTW, as a new Acer user, you'll want to look into the Photoscientia site. Best regards, and keep having fun--LRA From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:11 -0600 What a great suggestion! The center snaps on the negative carrier don't snap cleanly/crisply like the end snap and sometimes the center of the lid of the carrier appears to bow slightly. I was afraid to force it, and so just left it like that. I have ordered two more negative carriers (so I can be cleaning and loading while scanning) and I will see if they are better. Also, I will fiddle with these and see if I can improve the action. Whatever made you think of that? Thanks, /fn ps: I picked up a box of european travel/tourist junk (maps, postcards, etc.) from an auction tonight, and found a couple hundred commerical slides in the bottom! These are from the late 70's and early 80's. THey are all in the original boxes/pouches - I have started scanning them in for fun and practice and the images are fantastic (to a lame newbie like me!) I am surprised the color has survived this long. I guess being in a storage container for the past 15 years didn't hurt them! I won't be getting too much sleep tonight - this is just way to much fun! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Womack Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:49 PM To: Majordomo leben.com Subject: re: filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem I've never had this happen, only two thoughts come to mind. The clips on the film carrier are not CLIPPED tightly, double squeeze them to make sure. Defective. Check the film strip holders and if those are tight, exchange it! alan Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I
RE: filmscanners: cd making question
Just a note, Adobe PS6.0 will create a web gallery from pictures in a set of directories for you with or without frames. Look in the File/Automate/Web Galery menu. /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 6:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: cd making question I've been looking into automatic set-up of a web page thumbnail browser of a set of pictures and I have found the following quite good. http://www.hnm-freeware.com/ (click on web gallery creator) Jpeg only http://basepath.com/Albumatic/ can cope with TIFF (uncompressed) as well as jpeg - it can also do a webpage with frames. Neither can do a slide show but both could be set up to auto-start on a CD by adding autorun.inf as described below in the original message. You could also set them up to produce a set of thumbnails that could be used as a CD cover. Steve - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: cd making question On windows Set up a html file in the root directory to show the files (assume it is called index.html for this example) then create an autorun.inf file in the root directory of the CD with the following lines: [autorun] OPEN=start.exe index.html This will automatically start explorer with the file index.html. Steve - Original Message - From: cjcronin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: filmscanners: cd making question Hi, I want to make/burn cd's with images on them and have a thumbnail file on there too, that will automatically start when the cd is popped in the drive. So the user will have thumbnails in front of them and then they can click on an image to open it. Or if they want to, they can close out the thumbnail file and open the files in an imaging program. Hope I'm making sense Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can do this. Thanks! Jules Jules http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Jules/index.html
filmscanners: ACER Scanwit 2720S problem
Hi, I just got an ACER Scanwit 2720s last week and I see there are some Scanwit users here - so, thought I would ask about a problem I am having. Using either Vuescan 7.1.3 or MiraPhoto the unit will occasionally loose track of the negative carrier position. By this I mean that if I have a 4 neg strip in positions 1-4 or in positions 3-6 and select to scan one of them I will get a different frame back - ie. selecting 4 returns 5. This also occurs when batch scanning - ie. I will only get 3 of the 4 frames and a blank. I have tried both MiraPhoto and Vuescan when this occurs and it is repeatable in both (it happens every time) once it starts happening. I don't see any obvious sequence that leads to it. I somes have scanned in 10 to 15 strips with no problem. Once the problem occurs it is repeatable 100% until I turn the Scanwit off and back on. I have tried both with and without a SCSI terminator. Any suggestions before contact Tech Support? (I called tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour before I gave up.) Frank Nichols Newbie - and proud of it!
