Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets ouch, that's about 7x more than i want to pay :) Are you looking to pay $80? They are coming down in price quite a bit from what I can tell (used that is). the one i saw a price for was $2400 without the transparency cover which was another $400. i guess that was new. doesn't anyone make a cheap inaccurate transparency scanner? letter is okay for me, i just want to be able to fit 5 frames of 35mm at a time... 5 frames, as in frames 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, or 5 strips? If you mean 5 frames, hell, get a 1640SU. 5 frames in one strip. the 1640SU can't do that as the transparency unit is only large enough to fit a 3 frame strip. i'm keeping an eye out for tabloid scanners on ebay now. thanks much. ~j
filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
subject that's been touched on this list before. i want to get a flat bed scanner specifically for making contact sheets for 35mm film. obviously it needs to be able to handle an 8x11 *transparency*. it does NOT need to have great color matching but does need a decent dpi. i have an epson precision 1200U with the transparency adapter which is fine, but the scanning area for transparencies is very small (can fit jsut 4 (2x2) 35mm frames). other requirements: USB or SCSI and $400 any ideas? -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
ouch, that's about 7x more than i want to pay :) doesn't anyone make a cheap inaccurate transparency scanner? letter is okay for me, i just want to be able to fit 5 frames of 35mm at a time... - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets I use an Epson 836XL tabloid scanner. It's 800SPI which is just fine for contact sheets. You really don't need high SPI for contact sheets...but what you do need is size! A 36 exposure 35mm contact sheet doesn't fit on the letter scanners...so I had to move up to a tabloid. The other option is to shoot 24, which certainly has a better chance of fitting on one of the 8.5 x 11 scanners...but make sure you check the transparency size the scanner supports. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jules Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets subject that's been touched on this list before. i want to get a flat bed scanner specifically for making contact sheets for 35mm film. obviously it needs to be able to handle an 8x11 *transparency*. it does NOT need to have great color matching but does need a decent dpi. i have an epson precision 1200U with the transparency adapter which is fine, but the scanning area for transparencies is very small (can fit jsut 4 (2x2) 35mm frames). other requirements: USB or SCSI and $400 any ideas? -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Fw: filmscanners: mechanical adjustment on nikon ls-2000
hi again, since i had no luck getting any help on this or the digitalsilver list, does anyone at least know where i could look for an answer? is there the equivalent of the old nikon tech forum somewhere? thanks in advance - Original Message - From: Jules [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:23 AM Subject: filmscanners: mechanical adjustment on nikon ls-2000 greetings, my ls-2000 recently fell just a tiny bit out of mechanical calibration causing a very short grinding noise at the end of the scan as the scanning aparatus runs out of space to move. this introduces a smear on one side of the image. i'm also worried that it's not good for the stepper motor. i don't want to send the scanner back to nikon for repairs. is there a way that i can adjust the scanning aparatus? or maybe the problem is with the SF-200 slide feeder that i'm using. a glance shows the slide perfectly centered when loaded in the SF-200. but i still get the short grind. turning the scanner on/off doesn't help this as you'd expect. i'm hoping there's some screw i can turn to make minute adjustements on the scanning field. -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
filmscanners: mechanical adjustment on nikon ls-2000
greetings, my ls-2000 recently fell just a tiny bit out of mechanical calibration causing a very short grinding noise at the end of the scan as the scanning aparatus runs out of space to move. this introduces a smear on one side of the image. i'm also worried that it's not good for the stepper motor. i don't want to send the scanner back to nikon for repairs. is there a way that i can adjust the scanning aparatus? or maybe the problem is with the SF-200 slide feeder that i'm using. a glance shows the slide perfectly centered when loaded in the SF-200. but i still get the short grind. turning the scanner on/off doesn't help this as you'd expect. i'm hoping there's some screw i can turn to make minute adjustements on the scanning field. -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III
- Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:59 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III What's the deal with ICE^3 support for the new Nikon scanners only?? If Nikon offers NS3 for the LS-2000, why not offer the full deal??? i'd love to get ICE^3 for my LS-2000. it's typical for companies to try and force current owners to upgrade their hardware through this sort of methods. i wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't hack a way to use ICE^3, since it's all just software anyway. ~j
Re: filmscanners: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan...
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:18 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan... On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:40:38 -0500 Tom Scales ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Shoot, I've never seen one, but it seems like the Nikon 4000 ED with the optional slide feeder would be perfect. 36 shots at a time. Doubtful - it will be extremely slow compared to bulk scanning stations which process slides in a matter of seconds each. Does anyone know if, with the LS4000 feeder, Nikon have finally got around to fixing the notorious jamming/misfeed problems which affected the hoppers for both the LS1000 LS2000? Or whether they've improved their idea of autoexposure ( on previous models: work out the exposure for the first slide in the hopper and then assume all the rest are identical)? Probably not, as I don't expect the '4000 hopper is being distributed yet. i find my SF-200 (LS-2000 slide feeder) to be foolproof, but it took me a long time to get it that way. the primary reason for jams is the mount being too rough surfaced or placed incorrectly causing two slides to be fed into the scanner at a time. i found, for example, that one particular type of plastic mount (i forget the brand) would work fine in one direction, but would cause jams in another (you can test this by putting two slides together and sliding them around. if they can slide to the right, that's how you put them in). the mounts i use now, thin gepe when machine mounted, the thicker ones when hand mounting (the thicker the mount the less jams you'll get) work exceptionally well. i haven't experienced a jam in over a year (at least a thousand scans and all in the feeder). ~j
filmscanners: Re: Slide feeder, was: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan...
- Original Message - From: "Alan Shaw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:18 AM Subject: Slide feeder, was: You have several hundred thousand transparencies to scan... Jules wrote: i find my SF-200 (LS-2000 slide feeder) to be foolproof, but it took me a long time to get it that way. the primary reason for jams is the mount being too rough surfaced or placed incorrectly causing two slides to be fed into the scanner at a time. i found, for example, that one particular type of plastic mount (i forget the brand) would work fine in one direction, but would cause jams in another (you can test this by putting two slides together and sliding them around. if they can slide to the right, that's how you put them in). the mounts i use now, thin gepe when machine mounted, the thicker ones when hand mounting (the thicker the mount the less jams you'll get) work exceptionally well. i haven't experienced a jam in over a year (at least a thousand scans and all in the feeder). ~j Well, that's the thing, Jules: you've told us before how well the SF-200 works for you, and I'm envious, but still dubious about it for me. Your post appears to mean that the SF-200 won't behave well with the "regular" cardboard-mounted slides I get back from my lab. So the feeder convenience must be balanced against the trouble of mounting my own slides. yeah, well that sucks for you. i actually had a choice of three labs that all did good processing and all 3 offered plastic mounts. i chose the one that was closest to the gepe mounts that work well for me. I do mount my own 120 slides, but that's much lower volume... Can you talk a bit about machine mounting at home? Like cost and time? i looked into this a few weeks ago and ran against walls and wallet killers only. for example, a true automatic slide mounter costs at least $US 3K. i just have the lab mount everything, my chromes and my negatives although i do some at home as needed. if i had more time, i'd do everything by hand tho. i can do 1 roll every 15 minutes (assuming at least 1/2 throwaways). ~j
filmscanners: scanning cross-processed film
i'm trying to scan some kodak supra 100 developed in e6. the slides have the pinkish look that i want, but i'm having a lot of trouble getting it scanned (LS-2000, VueScan). for some reason the scanner/software tries to make the background white. i've all the color presets in vuescan, even "neutral" came out white in the preview and "none" came out slighly blueish. anyone have experience scanning xp? -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: Sorting OT mail
this list is the silliest list i've ever been on. a handful of stubborn mules continue to have an offtopic discussion about offtopic posts, or long, drawn out off topic discussions that could EASILY be moved into private email (but are not because 1. people are too lazy to change the To: line and/or 2. these people actually believe that their discussion are interesting to the rest of us/want to show off their trivial knowledge), driving off the list's most valuable contributors and annoying the hell out of users who just wish to discuss film scanners. you may want to consider joining a list-issues lists which exist (i don't feel like looking right now). there is also: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/?cid=2806 i realize how hypocritical this post is. but i'll only say it once. you idiots drove off Ed and i think that sucks. ~j P.S. (this isn't directed at Eli) - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: filmscanners: Sorting OT mail The server will always place "filmscanners" at the beginning of the Subject line when a user posts to the list (even if the entire Subject line is deleted before replying). If a user *replies* to a previous post without deleting the subject line, the server will begin the Subject line with "RE:filmscanners". This should not prevent sorting by subject, however, since the rest of the "Subject" line may be different. -Original Message- From: Tony Sleep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: OT messages OTquestions. On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:26:52 -0600 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I believe that the "Re: filmscanner" portion of the header is not an option of the sender of the message but is automatically added to the subject header by the server. Correct. This was repeatedly asked for by some people who wanted to sort their mail by subject. This does not preclude changing the remainder of the content of the subject header after "Re: filmscanner." Quite right. In fact you can also remove the 'RE:filmscanners:' bit from replies. Whether or not the server will promptly put it back I dunno, but doubtless there will be howls of protest from folk using the subject line to sort their OT mail ;) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: GEM the LS2000
is GEM available only at the hardware level? or is there a way to do GEM post scan? more specifically will i ever be able to take a raw scan (RGBI) from the LS2000 and do GEM processing on it? -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: analog gain
- Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: analog gain Guy wrote: Any chance of changing this? It would be great if we could play with the exposure in preview mode without actually doing the scan. I imagine that this would speed up my attempting to optimize the exposure on some of my hard to scan underexposed slides. If you change the brightness, the best thing to do is rerun the preview scan. It's not horribly slow. Otherwise you're not seeing the result of the longer integration time. I imagine Ed could code Vuescan to estimate the change produced by the brightness control, but people would probably complain that it wasn't accurate. Changing the brightness (equivalent to analog gain) and redoing the preview scan is really the only way to be sure. i think you misunderstood. vuescan does not show the RGB analog gain in the preview *scan*. what guy was saying is that he has to check the full scan to see the effects of analog gain. i concur with guy, it would be great to see the effect in the preview scan. ~j
filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? what i've started doing when i needed to turn it up or down, is scanning the negative as a *positive* and then inversing it in photoshop. painful, because you can't preview the final accurately. and i'm not sure what other assumptions the scanner/software makes when i do that. all i know is it's worked for black and white film at least. any ideas why analog gain seems to be unhooked for negative film? ~j -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
filmscanners: does this list have an archive? [eom]
eom = end of message :) -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/12/2001 2:43:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? It works fine with VueScan, and I'm pretty sure it works fine with NikonScan as well. In VueScan, just turn off "Auto exposure" and set the "RGB exposure" manually. You'll see the raw scan get brighter or dimmer when you change this option, regardless of whether you're using negative film or slides. definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. i then ran nikonscan and tried doing previews at -2, 0, and 2. no change. i switched to positive and these huge changes started showing up. ~j
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jules writes ... there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? ... It has been a long time since I quit using NS and switched to VS, but it seems to me you are correct regarding NS. i'm using vuescan exclusively now and i am definitely not seeing any difference in the preview. i also tried a fast scan (1 pass) to make sure it wasn't just some preview bug. However, it seems to be "analog gain" was offered only if you used a certain feeder. Leastwize, I remember options being different if you used the "film strip feeder" versus the "film strip holder" ... and I've forgotten which was what. interesting, but i always use the slide feeder because i have all my print film mounted in slide mounts (specifically to take advantage of the feeder). I'd certainly suggest using the more versatile VS i do. i only tried NS because it wasn't working with VS. (... altho, one reason may be because altering the alalog gain may affect the subtraction of the orange mask(?) ...) yeah, i actually have read that somewhere (probably on the nikontech boards) but it was supposed to have been "fixed" in the 1.31 firmware. anyway, i'm hope i'm not crazy, but it's really not working for me :) ~j
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: "Jo Ann Snover" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. i then ran nikonscan and tried doing previews at -2, 0, and 2. no change. i switched to positive and these huge changes started showing up. I have an LS-30, not a 2000, but I use the Analog Gain with negatives and it works very well. I will see big differences with even a +/- 0.3, so you should definitely see something with big numbers. There is a button in the main part of the NikonScan dialog that says "Apply A Gain". Is it possible that after setting the analog gain value you are turning that button off before scanning? hmm, no, i've definitely made sure it was filled in. the thing is, i've been using my ls-2000 for 2 years now, and am very familiar with nikonscan and i've never had analog gain work for negatives. ~j
filmscanners: OT: anyone else sick of this? [was Re: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?]
this list is one of the busiest list's i'm on. does it really need another flame war? - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? Because Windows 2000 IS robust down to the core, and the new consumer version will be based on the same engine. So no, I'm not kidding. And they probably are bothered by Linux, the way flies sometimes bother you at a picnic. blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
- Original Message - From: "Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: [OT] javascript/java (was RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution) At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote: My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent? Sorry to give you the bad news, but if you surf around with java/javascript on, site counters will gather the following information and report it back to the site owner: - Your browser and version no. - Your operating system - Your resolution and color depth - Your domain (ie your country of origin, and even the server from which your connection emanates) - The referring site, ie the site or search engine from which you came just for the record, turning off javascript and/or java only prevents the capturing of resolution and color depth in the above list. the others are all gathered from your IP, your User Agent string (your browser sets this, although some browsers, not the major ones, let you play with it), and the referral field which is an HTTP environment variable extension (and some browsers, but not the major ones, will let you block). ~j
Re: filmscanners: analog gain vs. auto exposure in vuescan [was Re: Need feed...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:10 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: analog gain vs. auto exposure in vuescan [was Re: Need feed... In a message dated 3/6/2001 2:45:52 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so just let me understand this: auto-exposure in VueScan (at least in the LS-2000) controls the analog gain controls, not levels? is this the way NikonScan works too? The auto exposure in VueScan and the analog gain in NikonScan control the same thing - the length of time the CCD is exposed to light. any plans to support separate R,B,and G values like Nikon Scan? i found this important with some slide films, like provia-f which scans with a slight blue overtone for some reason. i'd just turn the analog gain on blue down a tad with nikon scan. ~j
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:27 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:04:49 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just too much programming. Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing the "Scan" button? is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even faster than the fastest vuescan preview. ~j
filmscanners: what is prescan [was Re: Need feedback on VueScan Idea]
- Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea Jules writes ... is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even faster than the fastest vuescan preview. The "prescan" in NS simply measures the proper exposure, altho it also measures the exposure during the "preview" (one of the preferences). With Vuescan, the exposure is measured according to your preference as well, during the preview (default), or for (presumably) batch scans, before the scan. well, NS has to scan the image, how else can it "simply measure the proper exposure"? there has to be image data. NS can also be configured to do auto exposure before the preview or the scan. there's a prescan mode in NS that seems to do an exposure reading and focusing perhaps? ~j
Re: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones)
sorry, i looked back through all of Ed Hamrich messages since i joined the list (mid feb) and i didn't see one that answered this. can you point me in the right direction? - Original Message - From: "IronWorks" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones) 3.By now you've seen the answer to this from Ed Hamrich. - Original Message - From: "Jules" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:03 AM Subject: filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones) | 3. it would be really nice if the user interface somehow told you what | options affect the raw file and which don't. is there a list?
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "Collin Ong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote: I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for "scrub" "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) Ed, I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. but scrub = clean + grain removal and scour = clean + heavier grain removal why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? ~j
filmscanners: analog gain vs. auto exposure in vuescan [was Re: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements]
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:03 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements In a message dated 3/6/2001 10:21:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of the LS-2000? Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure" and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure". This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan. superb! so auto exposure adjusts those analog values? i thought it was a post scan processing thing. i guess this means it's critical that even the raw scan is cropped correctly, originally i thought the raw scan didn't get any autoexposure, that it's always scanned the same way. again, i must have missed the message alluded to here where the options that apply to raw scan output are listed. this would be extremely helpful as right now i'm not taking full advantage not knowing when i have to do a real rescan and when i can just work from the raw. for example, i scanned some Fuji Provia-F 100 and it came out a bit dark. i adjusted the brightness setting under colors and rescanned from raw and that seemed to have helped, although the colors were off (easily corrected). i'd much rather have adjusted the analog gain, but that would have required a rescan (according to what this message says). so just let me understand this: auto-exposure in VueScan (at least in the LS-2000) controls the analog gain controls, not levels? is this the way NikonScan works too? sorry if these are stupid questions, but i'm still having trouble grocking all this. ~j
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:52 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements Manually adjusting exposure, also brings up a point. I wish the number which would be input could be more intuitive. For example, if I wanted to increase the exposure by an f/stop equivelent, then double the number; 2 stops, quadruple the number. Trying to do this obviously brings up the question of doing this, and also having it equivalently affect ALL scanners VS supports. In this context, we do have to be careful/understanding when we make such suggestions for VS. brilliant idea. it would so cool to do all the measurements and adjustements in terms of EI values. this would be technically difficult to do, because each scanner would have to have it's own scales, calibrations might be off, etc. also, it may be intuitive to photographers, but what about graphic artists? is VueScan directed at photographers only? ~j
filmscanners: vuescan questions (different ones)
i have an LS-2000 and VueScan 6.7.5 i finally learned how to use it (VS) after a few weeks of experimention and man does it kick NikonScan's butt. but i have some questions: 1. cropping seems to be off, i lose about 1% of the image on the long side. that's with everything on auto. if i select the crop size to 35mm slide it's too small, 35mm film is too big (everything i scan is mounted so the original is irrelevant). if i use manual, it looks like the corner location of the crop is also manual. is there a way i can set the size of the crop manually but have it positioned automatically (so i can do batch scanning this way) 2. what if i want to batch scan and output crop files but i don't want the raw file cropped? is there a way to do this? (i want to be able to walk away and come back and have a batch of crops and scans (raws) but i want to be able to redo the crops if they're overcropped, for example, but right now even the raw is cropped). 3. it would be really nice if the user interface somehow told you what options affect the raw file and which don't. is there a list? 4. i'm using "generic" even for print film. when i scanned some ektapress pj100 and applied that media setting the images were way too light. using the generic setting gives me more of the saturated pj100 i expect. (problem is i never saw this film printed from film directly, i've always just scanned it, so i'm not sure what it's actually supposed to look like! g). my question is, when do you REALLY want to use the media settings other than generic? that's it for now, i think. thanks in advance. -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: [OT] digital watermarking
- Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jules wrote: i'm wondering, is there a free watermarking software solution? I don't use it myself, but I think Picture Publisher has that option. PP's about $40-60US (street). unfortunately, Picture Publisher does this using the Digimarc plug-in. same as Photoshop. i.e. same problem. ~j
filmscanners: Fw: digimarc watermarking service
FYI, i received this message from Digimarc today. - Original Message - From: "Mary Kuch-Nagle" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Jules'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: RE: digimarc watermarking service Jules, Thank you for your interest in Digimarc. I understand your frustration and the position that you are in. We changed our pricing model in April of 2000, and hopefully you received that message notifying our customers of this change. You had asked if you need to regenerate your images without the Digimarc watermark. You will not have to do that. If you allow your subscription to lapse, you will simply remove the ability for another person reviewing your work to find out information about how to contact you. The image will not render themselves useless, nor will they "blow up" in anyway. It's very similar to that of a phone number. When you pay your bill, people dialing your number can reach you. When you have your phone disconnected, you can still give out your phone number, but those dialing your number will not reach you and will get a message notifying them that your number has been disconnected. The same is true of your watermarked images. We do offer a discount of 10% if you are a non-profit organization as defined by the US IRS. Again, I am very sorry that you are frustrated with our new pricing model. Best Regards, Mary Kuch-Nagle Customer Care Coordinator Digimarc Corporation Direct (503) 495-4623 Fax (503) 495-4003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: [OT] digital watermarking
anyone here use digimarc's photoshop plugin to embed a digital watermark in your images before displaying them on the web? well, as if you do you may be aware that digimarc suddenly decided to charge everyone for watermarking 100+ images (an anual fee) last year, now they are forcing everyone to "update their registration" which forces you to either lie or pay. now i have over 5000 images that i've watermarked in the last 3 years. i'm not about to pay $399/year since i'm not a pro, i've yet to make any money from this stuff. the most annoying and scary thing is that i may have to go and regenerate ALL those images again without the digimarc watermark. i'm wondering, is there a free watermarking software solution? -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
filmscanners: firsttime vuescan user
greetings, i use an ls-2000 (got one of the first ones when they became available) and have been struggling with nikon scan since. i recently decided to give vuescan a try, after hearing so many good things about it. my first scan attempt was very promising and so i went and registered the software. i'm running into all sorts of problems. 1. i'm constantly getting out of focus problems, especially when scanning multiple times per line. i can hear the scanner working and it's not doing the grinding pre-scan focus thing. i definitely have the focus setting right (it's set to always focus). when i reset options to default and rescan the image it's in focus again. i have yet to determine what combinaton of options breaks the focus. 2. i made a scan of a tricky portra 160nc frame using nikon scan, and then using vuescan. both programs were set to do 4 passes, no ICE, at 2700dpi. the nikon scan scan shows all the highlights of the original frame, but the vuescan version shows noise in the shadows and fails to capture a bright highlight in one part of the frame. i examined viewscan's raw scan using photoshop and sure enough the noise is there. 3. auto-cropping is black magic to me. sometimes it's on, sometimes it misses causing the exposure to be totally wrong. is this normal? i am currently on the road and unable to provide example, should they become necessary i will post some. but i have a feeling that i'm simply missing something simple. so what i was wondering is this: would anyone on the list using the LS-2000 with vuescan give me some pointers on what settings to use for scanning slides and print film at 2700dpi? i'm interested in quality not time of scan. (i have successfully figured out how to use vuescan with the batch feeder for raw scans, although the raw scans themselves seem not as good as those done with nikon scan). thanks -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
