[filmscanners] Re: PS Elements 2.0 upgrading to Photoshop CS
This is the upgrade I was referring to http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicroteksourcecode=112300 - Original Message - From: Ellis Vener [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:51 PM Subject: [filmscanners] PS Elements 2.0 upgrading to Photoshop CS On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 11:05 PM, KARL SCHULMEISTERS wrote: The nice thing about Elements, is that it allows you to upgrade to full PS for a discount. Having worked with Photoshop Cs for about a week I am pretty impressed and certainly think it is worth having if you are a serious photographer. But what you said is simply not currently accurate. According to the Adobe website: Adobe Photoshop CS Upgrade To install upgrade successfully, you will need a licensed version of Photoshop 7.0 or earlier on the same platform as this purchase. NOTE: Upgrade does not apply to Photoshop Elements, Photoshop Album, Photoshop Limited Edition, or PhotoDeluxe licensed users. Take care, Ellis Vener Atlanta, GA I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. - Mahatma Gandhi 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: PS Elements 2.0
The nice thing about Elements, is that it allows you to upgrade to full PS for a discount. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:27 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS Elements 2.0 No to both questions, that is no 16bit support and no curves (although there are workarounds for curves available). - Doug Nelson == http://www.retouchpro.com -- The #1 online community for retouchers and restorers -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] PS Elements 2.0 I gathered from past posts that PS Elements does not support processing in 16 bit mode. Also, I gathered that it does not have curves. Question: Do these limiitations still apply to PS Elements 2.0? I don't need a discussion on 16 vs 8 bit etc, just a yes or no to both questions. The PS web site did not address these questions. I want to know whether I should waste my time looking at Elements, which is coming with some hardware...so it's not costing me anything extra [or avoidable, anyway]. Thanks, Berry -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
David, I think you have pre-judged the issue and are mixing emotional rhetoric with supportable and reproducible/verifiable results. your arguement that on a 'pixel level' film scans aren't the same quality as 10D images is a prime example. a) its not clear what comparison metric you are using b) what even 'pixel level' comparison itself means As was pointed out, a 2 pixel camera has brilliant sharpness, and if it is a Bayer sub-pixel layout, it will have the 'average' color balance of the scene capture pretty accurately. But at best it will be an impressionistic rendition of the scene. You also say WRT what kind of comparisons being made Someone argued that scanners produce better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital camera pixels. o o o Bayer images have very close to the right ratio of luminance to color resolution for viewing by humans. If you print a Bayer image at a high enough dpi that you are satisfied with the detail, then the color resolution will be good enough as well, so the interpolated pixels cheap shot is just that, a cheap shot. But other than insisting its 'worse than digital' you really haven't explained how and why it is worse. The 'dye cloud' of film acts most similarly to the Foveon sensor - capturing R,G,B information at each crystal/sub-pixel location simultaneously. A Bayer pattern does not. Which means that inherently the Bayer pattern sensor is creating data in the absence of existing data. Irrespective of how good the estimation equation is, it is still just that, an approximation. And like any mathematical model, it is provably susceptible to uncorrectable artifacts. The limit of the data that can be resolved on high end film, is higher than all but the most exceptional digital imagers. The math just proves this. The question therefore becomes - does a high resolution scan of this introduce sufficient optical defects that the end result is a lower data density than what you can capture from a 10D or similar. I don't think you have made the case that it is. Perhaps for a 1DS, but then you are looking at a capture device that has a resolution capability that is very close to the finest grained film data theoretic and empirical limits (just under 4000ppi scan rate). But the claim that a 10D is better than film isn't supported by the math or by visual inspection. - Original Message - From: David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:43 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Take a 900 x 900 pixel crop from your 5080 dpi scan and print it at 3x3 inches. Take a 900x900 crop from a 10D image and print it at 3x3 inches. Which looks better? That depends, It doesn't depend. I've never seen a scan that was, on the pixel level, even close in quality to what the 10D produces. and I am curious why you think that is of any value? I'm curious too. I'm not the one making comments to the effect my scanner produces 210 MP when your digital camera only produces 6MP. If a 300 x 300 crop from a 10D represents 16x more area, why not compare actual area for area? Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital camera pixels. (On an area for area basis, it seems digital wins, though. Most people comparing the 1Ds to 35mm find the 1Ds superior, and I suspect that even a 5080 dpi scan of a 15mm by 22.5mm section of film would look a lot worse at A4 than a 10D image would.) You're making the arbitrary choice of sensor sizes/metrics here. The pixel area from one is not necessarily of equal value to the pixel area from another, and what the equality is, depends on how many pixels there are for the respective image. I could downsample my scanner to give me the exact same image area information as the 10D, and that information would contain complete color values, not interpolated pixels. Bayer images have very close to the right ratio of luminance to color resolution for viewing by humans. If you print a Bayer image at a high enough dpi that you are satisfied with the detail, then the color resolution will be good enough as well, so the interpolated pixels cheap shot is just that, a cheap shot. If you print a scanned image at a high enough dpi that you are satisfied with the detail, then the color resolution will be insane overkill, unless your audience is Foveon equipped robots. Nothing wrong with insane overkill, it gets the job done. But it doesn't make a difference in the visual properties of the print. If you consider the minimum dpi for acceptable print to be a measure of (the inverse of) an imaging technology's pixel quality,
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Thats what I get for doing math late at night, my bad. - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints From: KARL SCHULMEISTERS Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Which generates some amazing images, but still doesn't quite match film when you enlarge it. 4000dpi comes out to about 4K by 6K, or 24M. A 6Mp camera is closer to a 2700dpi scanner. Save your pennies for when D1s technology makes it down to $2500, or get the 10D as a camera to use when you don't really intend to go much bigger than 8x10 That's only good advice if you're obsessive about sharpness, and intend to examine the prints with a loupe. Believe me, the 10D makes very nice 12x18 prints. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Upsampling always results in some loss - it might be artifacts, it might be loss of tonal gradation. My math was late night error. My practical experience is that I have yet to see a digicam image of less than 10+mPixels that looks as good printed at 11x17 as 35mm scanned at 4000dpi printed to the same level. It might simply be that the regularity of digital artifacting is more noticeable than grain. It just doesn't look that good. And this includes images others have raved about. It may also be a matter of what you look for in an image and how experience/biased the viewing eye is. - Original Message - From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints Eugene, 240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. The question is can you get better results by upsampling to 720dpi yourself (using QI for example that upsamples with various superior methods - bicubic, lanczos, vector, etc). You seem to be suggesting that you can't, but others suggest you can. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 240 dpi is all that is needed. 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: Pixels and Prints
The idea that you won't have grain is somewhat misleading. When you upsize to 11x17, you will have the equiv of grain in the form of digital artifacts. At even 8x10, I can tell the difference between a 35mm film image and a 6mpixel Camera, and it is even more obvious at 11x17. Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Which generates some amazing images, but still doesn't quite match film when you enlarge it. Sure Genuine Fractals soften out the artifacting you get from the lack of DPI, but they can't make up for lack of tonal content etc. Save your pennies for when D1s technology makes it down to $2500, or get the 10D as a camera to use when you don't really intend to go much bigger than 8x10 - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. Conventional teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching incorrect when it comes to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels are needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are other benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of grain, but sharpness is quite important to me as well. You're right that you won't get _super_ sharp images from a 6Mp camera at 11x17, but they'll still be quite sharp at 180ppi. I like the results I get with a Canon 10D and an Epson 2200. For some subjects with a lot of sharp lines, you can use tools like the Geniune Fractals plugin to upsize, because it does a good job of artificially preserving edge sharpness. Another alternative in some situations, is to shoot multiple shots and stitch them together. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200
Ok, I'll try it and see - 14 stops huh?! hmmm - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:10 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 KARL SCHULMEISTERS wrote: The reason I question the 'great dynamic range' is that the best color films only get about 7-8 stops of dynamic range. False premise alert! I see 14stop range in many; any of the Fuji Superia films have quite extraordinary range. And since chromogenic BW films essentially use the same technology/photochemistry, I'd be very surprised if they can exceed that (slide film is around 4-5 stops). Again, 14stops here. With conventional BW film and a solvent, compensating developer and reduced ISO I've achieved 12 stops at best. Non-chromagenic TMax and Delta films using tabular grain technologies also push 14stops, without dev tricks. But this isn't the whole story. Extreme range isn't much use if you can't scan or print it. That's the real trouble with conventional films, that if you do exceed the DR you hit a brick wall. The 'S' shaped curve deals with highlights by compressing them, and when you reach the flattened top of the S, that's it. They have great midtone separation, which is pictorially important, and why a lot of people love them. CN, chromagenic and T-grain films are rather similar to each other and more linear. Their extended range is all located at the highlight end, where they go on building density after conventional BW has blocked. These long-scale highlights can be wretched to print on bromide, which is why paper formulations got changed to cope (eg Ilford MG4 RC - the non-RC seems to be different). Which makes getting all the highlight detail easier, but you pay for it in flattened midtones unless you use a hard enough paper to make highlights awkward. At the same time shadow separation tends to be a little weak. Downrating a bit helps preserve this. IME chromagenic is much easier to use and print because dye density doesn't build to the same extent. With T-grain films, highlight detail is there alright, but the OD is more severe, and a pain to burn in. But both do have rather flat midtones, which a lot of people dislike. When it comes to scanning, the softer negs (lower ODR) of chromagenic dyes makes life very much easier. The softer edges of the dye clouds also help avoid grain aliasing issues. Really, if you are shooting BW with the intention of dig workflow, you have to try TCN or XP2. Not everybody likes the lack of grain and MF-like tonal smoothness, but personally I love it, and used XP1 for many years pre-scanning. The midtone lack of life, an issue on bromide, just isn't a problem when scanning. The downside of chromagenic is a slight loss of sharpness compared to the hard edges of grained films, but hey, now we have USM! Overall, TCN fits beautifully into a scanning workflow, but be prepared to adjust curves and levels to put some life back into those midtones. As with colour neg, it's often desirable to dupe the image, apply different curves and/or levels for shadow-midtone and highlights, then layer one over the other and selectively mask or erase to give a composite. I don't like the way TCN/XP2 pushes at all. For ISO400, TMax3200 or (as I later came to prefer) Delta3200 are miraculous, specially when used at ISO1250 or 1600 respectively. But they're buggers for grain aliasing. If you really want 'fast' though, have a look at www.halftone.co.uk/10d/ for the silly stuff you can do with a digicam and post-prod... Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk 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: scanning TMAX 3200
The reason I question the 'great dynamic range' is that the best color films only get about 7-8 stops of dynamic range. And since chromogenic BW films essentially use the same technology/photochemistry, I'd be very surprised if they can exceed that (slide film is around 4-5 stops). The traditional 'Zone System' was developed on the assumption (valid for the time) that BW film can capture 10 stops of dynamic range. Modern BW films are better than what Adams was working with when he co-developed the Zone System, so it doesn't surprise me to see that FP4 has a usable 11 stop range You can test this for yourself. Go buy a roll of T400 CN and a roll of Ilford FP4. Then borrow or buy a grayscale step tablet calibrated in 1/3 stop steps. Using the same camera,lens and lighting, shoot the step table (set the exposure off a gray card in the same lighting). Then still using the same gray card you used for your initial lighting, do a range of exposures starting at -6 stops to +6 stops over the indicated exposure (you might need to fiddle with speed/Fstop combos). Get both rolls developed (but not printed). Take a look at the number of stops between where the film itself goes from indistinguishable from the 'film fog' ie the same transmissivity as the sprocket hole exposure to shere it is so black that you can't distinguish between two adjacent exposures. I will lay good money that the range of T400 isn't close to that of FP4. - Original Message - From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:17 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 on 10/15/03 1:05 PM, Austin Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true that high quality silver-based BW film, when properly exposed and developed, has a higher dynamic range than chromogenic BW. It's also true that it is not a classic wet darkroom film, since it's normally developed by a one-hour type color lab. However, based on my experience with a consumer film scanner, low priced scanners don't have the dynamic range to handle the range of density that good BW negatives can produce, so this may be a moot point. The chromogenic films are certainly convenient, especially for the darkroom challenged, but I don't think that there's one out there with all the speed that TMAX 3200 offers. Well, you may be right. I don't know. But there have been some pretty good reviews of T400 CN film, which support my observation of the great range of this film. If you have some lab test to refer to, I would be interested in that. But, really, I think that Tony made the critical observation: you have to adjust the curves to exploit the dynamic range. The dynamic range it can handle is so great that the mid-tones are flattened until you tweak them to get where you want to be. But the information is there on the film if you want to exploit it. Really, I am a relative novice with this film. But it is very interesting to me, as someone who wants occasionally to make BW images on film and scan them to produce prints. Supposedly it is pretty good to 1600. Here are a couple links with some review of this film. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010427.htm http://www.capla.org/98_nov.htm Berry 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: scanning TMAX 3200
I don't think the dynamic range of chromogenic BW is nearly as great as silver BW. Note that since both chromo and silver BW is film, it is 'wet darkroom' until the scanning stage. Its true that 'Zone System' includes the work done on the print itself, but the goal of Zone System printing is to have a negative that has enough contrast range to be printed 'straight' on #2 or #3 grade paper. So IOW the neg manipulation techniques: (monochromatic filtering for improved MTF of the lens), Push/pull exposure/dev, all are very useful tools in generating a negative that scans well - with greater 'captured' dynamic range and sharpness than either from CN films or color that has been either 'desaturated' or channel selected for BW conversion. - Original Message - From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:50 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 on 10/13/03 7:57 AM, KARL SCHULMEISTERS at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides the sharpness of BW film that others have commented on, BW film has much greater dynamic range than color film (some film approaches 12 stops), an you can control contrast in 'difficult' situations via Zone System manipulations. Lots of reasons to shoot BW - - Original Message - From: don schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 5:42 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 o o o The BW CN films, why use them? If you want BW images, shoot with color neg. That way you can use channel blending in Photoshop to get the BW values just the way you want them. Don Karl, That applies to Silver BW being used in a wet darkroom, but does it apply to C41 BW being scanned for digital printing? The dynamic range (tolerance) of color film is great, and can be pretty effective if you stretch the contrast in digital processing. I do like the quality of the contrast of my C-41 BW scanned and manipulated digitally. If you print the unmodified scanned image, it is indeed very flat. Berry 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: TMAX/grain/BWscanning/dynamic range
On BW film, doing my own 'speed test' of FP4 demonstrated a dynamic range of 11 stops of solid exposure range! Now I know paper won't render all of them, so this is where a good scanner does come into play. The gotcha with multiple exposure is that if the scene you are imaging has any dynamism whatsoever, it will show up as softness or worse. (similar to multipass LF digicams) However, having 11 stops on a single neg, allows you to do multiple scans at different exposures (whitepoints), or using your technique, print multiple enlargements at differing contrasts and exposures and meld those. The downside of scanning from a print is that the experimental results I've seen, all indicate that scanning and then printing via digital photographic process yields the highest resolution/sharpest results of ALL techniques including 'straight to digital'. - Original Message - From: don schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:40 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: TMAX/grain/BWscanning/dynamic range Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:57:38 -0700 From: KARL SCHULMEISTERS [EMAIL PROTECTED] BW film has much greater dynamic range than color film (some film approaches 12 stops). Thanks, Karl, I assume you mean TechPan, although many people don't know how to get that much out of this film, and with 35mm, it's a very difficult proposition. Shooting color neg, you can split the dynamic range, shoot once for highlights, and another for shadow, and combine the scans in PS. I am not against BW shooting, just getting it scanned without the grain becoming compounded with other artifacts to make a very unpleasant situation is the problem. That's why I suggested making a very sharp wet darkroom print, then scanning it on flat bed. And that solution is suggested only because of the grain problem. If you have large format negs and no comparable film scanner, then it make even more sense to me. Now, whether you're printing to BW darkroom paper, or to an inkjet, you won't get 12 stops of dynamic range printed, so you have to decide into where all that extra dynamic range is going to be compressed to fit the range of the paper, and that's the choice we make as photographers, using whatever tools we choose, traditional or digital. It makes no difference. This is a great discussion. Thanks to all. Don/Boston, MA 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: scanning TMAX 3200
Good point about the one hour type lab. I develop my own BW - though I know of 3 good labs in town to which I send most of the color work. One of them does excellent drum scans which I go to when I have an image I really want to get 'right'. Still saving up for my own Imacon. - Original Message - From: Austin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:05 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 It's true that high quality silver-based BW film, when properly exposed and developed, has a higher dynamic range than chromogenic BW. It's also true that it is not a classic wet darkroom film, since it's normally developed by a one-hour type color lab. However, based on my experience with a consumer film scanner, low priced scanners don't have the dynamic range to handle the range of density that good BW negatives can produce, so this may be a moot point. The chromogenic films are certainly convenient, especially for the darkroom challenged, but I don't think that there's one out there with all the speed that TMAX 3200 offers. 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: scanning TMAX 3200
Besides the sharpness of BW film that others have commented on, BW film has much greater dynamic range than color film (some film approaches 12 stops), an you can control contrast in 'difficult' situations via Zone System manipulations. Lots of reasons to shoot BW - - Original Message - From: don schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 5:42 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning TMAX 3200 o o o The BW CN films, why use them? If you want BW images, shoot with color neg. That way you can use channel blending in Photoshop to get the BW values just the way you want them. Don 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: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
The Sigma cameras with Foveon chips are getting an anecdotal reputation of having difficulty with color fidelity. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper? I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the resolution? I couldn't tell. So I went to another digital review site www.imaging-resource.com, and I used the Comparometer, and took a look at the image of the house and the musicians, both which contain numerous angular lines within them. I used the Canon D30, since it has a similar resolution, and I was unable to see anything drastically difference between them in terms of this particular defect. I was somewhat surprised by the red/green color fringing on the Sigma, however, but that may have more to do with the lens, or even the software. If you can show me an A:B comparison of a camera of similar resolution that shows this problem clearly, I'm all eyes. BTW, I am not stating that your are wrong, you may well be correct. It is just that without having a comparison of another image technology to compare it to, I cannot identify that the probelm is unique to the Foveon chip. Art David J. Littleboy wrote: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. I've only seen samples on the web (some full file size) but I seem to recall seeing more aliasing with the CCD/bayer interpolation pattern than with the Foveon. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg Look closely at just about any close to horizontal or vertical line, e.g. the white border around the ONE WAY sign. (Diagonals seem to survive (see the finer wires) but the fat wires are a jaggy mess (those are jaggies, not twisted pair cables).) At first glance there seems to be a lot of detail, but it's all aliasing artifacts. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
There is another aspect of digicams that should be driving their prices lower than they have been so far: Shutter cycle life. The best shutters in the world have a theoretical cycle life of around 300,000 cycles. Practical shutter life spans are closer to 150,000-200,000.So on a $2000 digicam, that works out to be around $0.01-0.02/shot. Digital has a tendency to encourage 'blaze-o-matic' approaches to photography because of the perception that 'film is free'. So what are the life expectancies of the D-30s, D-1's, 1D's and D60s/D100s that are being sold on EBay today? If you figure the first buyers of these expensive cameras where journalists and volume portrait photogs, a reasonable estimate is that at least 50% of the shutter life on these cameras is gone. Yet the pricing on the Ebay cameras doesn't reflect that loss of functionality. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II Basically, cameras have become electronic devices with lenses. They are following a similar curve in depreciation, not only because of the perceived fact that they are obsolete more quickly, but because of the fact that they are not repairable, or cost a fortune to do so, and are basically not as reliable as they used to be. Rolex watches still fetch a good price because pretty much any of them can be repaired. In this make it so it can be tossed away when it breaks mentality with most goods, including cameras, people are just not willing to pay big bucks (or pounds for that matter) for used electronic gear that can't be tested fully and can't be trusted against catastrophic failure. It used to be you could have a mechanic test a camera and if it test good you were 80% sure it was a worthwhile investment that, taken care of, would give you years of value. Today, even one that's been tested, can fail suddenly and put you back more that its value in a repair, if it can be repaired. Also, a well made mechanical camera body could be had for $250 US 15-20 years ago in NYC, today, expect to pay $1500 for a similar quality electronic model. Anyone have a suggestion about whether I should keep my hardly ever used Hasselblad or just sell it now? Art Tony Sleep wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: That is not true with film cameras. Oh yes it is! About 4yrs ago I bought a pair of EOS1n's. One was s/h and cost 875GBP, the other was new and cost ~1100GBP. Both are now worth ~500GBP s/h. Depreciation of ~12% pa. The same goes for my Rollei 6000 MF kit, £3k evaporated down to £1k. I don't even bother to insure kit now, the depreciation is about equivalent to getting burgled annually by the time I add in the premium: why add self-abuse to injury? Previous generation Canon FD cameras took about twice that long to lose 50% of value. My enlarger, bought 1982, is still worth 80% of what I paid for it according to dealer prices (tho' GOK who buys darkroom kit now). Hah, those days are long gone, unless you buy Leica M's (not Leicaflexes though, they're as disposable as Nikons and Canons - see eBay!). Cameras, scanners, computers, digicams, software, printers are all now worthless, superceded junk faster than you can say 'I just made the last finance payment today'. Worst of all, bleedin' clients don't pay any more than they did c.1985... Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk 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: Digital for magazine publication?
I worked for Corbis back in the days when they were first setting up their labs, and while I wasn't directly involved with the lab work or the image taxonomy, a good friend of mine was the guy who designed their initial scanning labs. The room was a restricted room, ventilated with prefiltered air and kept at positive pressure (like the silicon fab labs are). They used drum scanners, and tons of 'air' (compressed helium if I recollect correctly). Even so, there was a long arguement as to what resolutions were 'useful', and they initially chose - primarily for cost/performance reasons, to scan at 2kx3k for 35mm format, and to scan larger formats at 2kxXk where X was the appropriate fractional multiplier. Reasoning was that for the majority of image reuse, 2k would let them be at magazine quality. They likely are scanning at larger bit depth now that storage costs have come down, but the goal always was price/performance - with the idea that for something really critical - say a billboard in Grand Central Sta NY, they would bill at a rate that covered the rescan. So while on one hand, the big guys CAN scan better - you can do almost as good at home. EXCEPT that for important shoots, the final scan IS done at higher quality. - Original Message - From: Brian Yarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital for magazine publication? Very simply, if digital really was the problem these art directors claimed, whose buying all those royalty free photo CDs for hundreds of dollars each? How is Photodisk and the like remaining in business? Some of those disks make for some pretty expensive computer monitor wallpaper, and they'd also be pretty boring to look at. Art and Fellow Listreaders: The big RF companies use drum scans and offer tech support. I think the problem is that the mistrust isn't for the concept of digital, it's for the idea that us little guys can even come remotely close to the quality the big companies offer. See if you can beg or borrow a disc or two from PhotoDisc, Corbis, Brand X or DigitalVision (to name the biggest players) and compare the scan quality to what our home scanners can offer. Sometimes we measure up, and sometimes we don't. Brian Yarvin Stock Photography from Edison, NJ http://www.brianyarvin.com 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: shoot first, fix it later
Laurie Your point about the use of tilt-shift etc. controls for architectural is well made. In my minds eye I was seeing the classic Arch Dig. image of some new-fangled interior shot - which is far more about lighting than the use of the controls. For interior work you aren't using selective focus, and vertical and horizontal shifts can usually be acomplished by moving the camera. As for the 'quality of image' issue - given the resolving abilities of modern films, even a high quality publication like AD isn't screening their printing at resolutions beyond 4000x6000 dots (in reality they aren't even close to that) for a full page spread - which puts it squarely in the resolving abilities of 35mm film. Nor can the dynamic range of a mass printed publication like AD take advantage of the enhanced tonal rendition you get in larger format film (more on that later as it is what my #4 point was about). I also agree completely with your description of the use of polaroids. What did I mean by #4: - well it all has to do with information density. About 9 mos ago I gave a small local seminar introducing 4x5 to a bunch of 35mm amateurs. As a preview, I shot the same architectural interior in BW with both 210mm 4x5 and a good quality 35mm zoom set to the same field of view as the 4x5. Film, exposure, development, printing filtration, printing enlarger were all the same. I printed 3 shots: full frame 8x10, 8x10 cropped out of 11x14, and 8x10 cropped from 32x40. Even at 8x10 you could tell the difference and normal viewing distances. Not by grain or sharpness, but by tonal 'depth' in the shadows. In essence the 4x5 is able to capture more subtle tonal variation before limiting out either by grain or by lens/diffraction than 35mm film is. This makes logical sense at very large enlargements where grain is pronounced, but it applies down to much lower enlargements as well, simply because there is more ability to capture the information coming through the lens. This translates to an increased latitude of exposure - becuase the greater tonal rendition essentially lets you be less precise with your deepest shadow exposures. After all, if in a perfect exposure in deep shadows you would 'flip' 4/8 crystals on a 4x5, getting it wrong might only flip 2, but something was captured. Wheras on a 35mm, that variation might be completely contained within a single crystal, and not getting it to 'flip' essentially loses that detail, even though on a properly exposed test chart, that level of resolution is within the bounds of the film. Did I explain that clearly? - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:10 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: shoot first, fix it later [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later I believe most architectural is still shot 4x5 - or 8x10 1) in part because until recently, film wasn't good enough to capture the details otherwise and so its 'how it always has been done'. 2) if you 'polaroid' the shot, its WYSIWYG 3) lenses have much greater coverage - a 90mm 4x5 lens is roughly equivilent to a 25mm lens for 35mm camera and a 60mm is a 15mm 4) larger film area gives you more latitude in lighting Its true that 4x5 scanners ain't cheap - but that's what service bueroes are for (damn I can't spell that word). I was hoping to avoid getting involved in this discussion; but a few of your comments have compelled me to add my two cents. While I agree that a large number of not most architectural and interior design photography is done with 4x5 and/or 8x10 when they are intended to be high quality images for use in high quality publications and advertising campaigns or PR campaigns, there are a number of purposes for architectural photography that do not require such high quality but merely documentation such as progress reports or for annual reports to clients, shareholders, directors, or funding sources in the case of grants from foundations or goverment agencies or loans from venture capitalists. In such cases medium format may suffice and frequently even 35mm will do as long as one cancontrol perspective so the building does not look distorted or like it is toppling over. My main focus was on your points 1 and 2. Regarding point 1, I believe it is not so much the size of the film as much as the fact that rail based view cameras tend to allow for greater perspective control in terms of tilts and shifts, the Schumflage effect, and the like which are not available in fixed body and lens cameras that make up most medium and small format cameras even when used with tilt and shift lenses. The 35mm and medium format tilt and shift lenses are limited in both their abilities to tilt and shift as well as in their focal lengths. With respect to point 2, polariods give one a preview of what one may get; but they do not provide any certainty that WYSIWYG obtains. They
[filmscanners] Re: Looking for simple presentation software
Windows XP comes with a simple version of that built right into the default image viewer. - Original Message - From: Michael Eisenstadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:04 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Looking for simple presentation software If your computer is a PC, I recommend LView Pro's slide show feature. You can download this shareware application from http://mlmstartup.com/soft.htm In addition to keying the next image, the program can do it automatically for you after you tell it how many seconds to display. Michael Eisenstadt Ken Durling wrote: On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 07:02:12 +1000, you wrote: I need to find a very simple program that will allow me to load on display scanned images in a fashion similar to using a slide projector. very simple, as in just press a key to advance to the next image. 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: Foveon
I know this is a bit old but I also agree that price points will come down. Moore's Second Law of Computers is that the 'price of silicon acerage' is constant. IE as density goes up, the only way to bring cost down is to bring size down. There are all sorts of factors in this, including yield rates and surface utility. One of the big diffs between the Foveon solution and film is the difference between a Forest and a Woods. A Forest is a haphazard place with trees chaotically distributed amongst undergrowth. A Woods is a place only with trees and is typically a cultivated mono-culture of tree type. Here in the west, we have lots of 2nd and 3rd growth tree farms. With rows upon rows of trees, just like corn stalks. They cause all sorts of visual artifacts because the gaps between them are regular. Same is true of Foveon. Their solution is better than RGGB, but it still has a regular pattern to it, and it still is susceptible to particular pattern pathologies including Nyquist sampling artifacts. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:28 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Foveon On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:48:18 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Once production ramps up, the price per unit will drop and yields will likely improve allowing for larger chips. Also, there is no specific advantage to a larger chip if the lenses are very good quality I disagree. Intriguing and promising though this Foveon tech is, a full-frame chip size would be much better for any type of CCD. It's not as if the output from existing CCD and CMOS designs is exactly shabby in real life, it's just that there isn't enough of it. That is where the breakthrough really needs to happen : some sort of wafer tech which makes large chips possible at low cost and high yield. The day that happens I really will start jumping up and down. What Foveon may give is information *density* on a par with film. That's wonderful if true (I rather suspect it's true for medium-fast film but 'grainlessness' is a plus which fudges ultimate resolution for smoothness of tone). However the chip size will constrain the overall equivalence to half frame or perhaps APS. There are many reasons for 35mm's enduring success, but one is that the total amount of information available is sufficiently versatile to encompass many uses. Used carefully, it permits a size of use for which there's a wide requirement, at a quality for which there's a wide requirement, and all with good ergonomics. The film is just an encoding medium, and until CCD's can achieve both equivalent or better information density *and* size, equivalent versatility is not going to be available from digicams. There may be overriding reasons why this is acceptable (eg press use turnaround speed; your acheing shoulder), but in absolute quality terms it is a brick wall. Fine-grain films are required to begin to approach the transfer abilities of the best lenses. If a CCD can match that ability per unit area, great, but it needs to be the same size for the exact same reasons that 6x9cm negs beat 35mm. And yes, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9cm and 5x4 CCD's would be nice too, but let's not be greedy, yet :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons 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: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Having been on the road now a lot since Sept 11, the deal is that unless you do the kind of search and interview that El Al does, all the 1st World airport screening does is screen out the idiots who after having one two many cocktails on the plane, MIGHT pull out a gun. It doesn't take much knowledge to figure out how to get enough stuff on board to repeat Sept 11. Mind you with this being a UK alias, and Carnivore running around, if you don't see anymore posts from me, you know John Ashcroft and his buddies got to me. This is a very scary time for anyone with a thinking mind here in the USA. - Original Message - From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:28 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc Doug Segar wrote: In addition, 1-2 out of ten result in a question from the screener film? and a nod OK when you say yes. A typical example of the intelligence of most security staff these days - you're hardly likely to reply no its dynamite/a gun are you! The real problem is that security firms are chosen on the basis of the lowest bid for the contract. So they hire a firm who get staff at the lowest pay, with the longest hours and the worst working conditions. Result: they tend to get the sickos thickos - those who like dressing up in a uniform and throwing their weight about, or who are too dense to get a job anywhere else. Also the really desperate, who only take this lousy job until they can get a real job. So you get poor quality staff working long hours, on a job that is basically mind-numbingly boring for 99% of the time, with occasional brief moments of terror or aggression. Is it any wonder that its so easy for crooks or terrorists to dodge such controls? And the rest of us have to put up with a gorilla chucking his weight about because he is afraid for his job, or just wants to take his frustrations out on someone? Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Well whether or not the 'official process' has been followed is somewhat irrelevant. I just got back from a multi-stop hop into, within and back home from Europe. Here is what I found I took all my film, put it in a ziplock baggy, and made sure I had some 1600 in there marked PUSH. With that I asked for hand inspection at all airports. I had no problems (after pointing to the 1600) at SeaTac and O'Hare outbound to Paris. I had no problems in CDG (despite my attrocious french pronunciation of 'trois mille' whilst pointing at the films) outbound to Stuttgart I had no problems Munich to Turin or Turin to CDG. BUT outbound from CDG back to the USA, I had no problems UNTIL, they did a final screening as part of the boarding process. After much begging, arguing and pleading (and here their threat of 'do it our way or get bumped' carried very real immediate consequences) they agreed to let me not have all of the 1600 not scanned, as well as all of the exposed 400 and 800. But they grumbled about how I should have a lead lined pouch. I think the trick is to carry your 1600 in a ziplock baggie. for your other film either a) put it in the lead lined pouch and run that through the hand-inspection screening or b) get one of those office label makers that print on aluminized labels, and print up markings for your film canisters that wrap the whole thing (just like the private label film from places like COSTCO) but are all marked 1600. Leave the auto-speed parts unchanged so your camera knows what's what. If need be, mark with a sharpie and apply another label. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc Thank you. Art Doug Segar wrote: At 04:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0800, you wrote: At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote: Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception. It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is difficult to find information on where the changes in security are being issued from. For example, the FAA says that they (not the airlines) are now restricting the number of bags, but try and find a government order on that. I'm not sure where the provision for constant random baggage checks is that now occur, either. Note that final revisions of regs post 09/11 (effective 11/14/2001) can be found at http://152.119.239.10/docimages/pdf73/134599_web.pdf The file is a large one but for those who do not wish to download it, the essential point is that the provision on hand inspection of film (including the critical word shall) is unchanged and there is nothing in the document that modifies certificate holder authority to change this rule without direct authorization by the FAA Administrator . .
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
I just got done with a 2 week trip through Europe. I did the bit of mixing various film speeds including Provia 1600 marked as Push 3200. I had no hassles at SeaTac, OHare, Charles-DeGaulle intra-europe, Munich intra-europe, Turin intra-Europe. But at CDG headed for the USA I almost lost all of my film. They had a final scanner check literally just before boarding and it took fairly hefty arguing and almost not getting on the plane to get them to not scan those bits of film that were marked as PUSH. Their comment: Get a Film Bag so that everything can go trough the scanner... DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, put your film in checked luggage. With the new scanners being deployed even domestically, 400sp film has been getting fogged. BTW, while it is true that painters don't go on and on about their brushes, they do spend equiv amounts of time discussing their palettes and their choice of mediums (maragete etc.) - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:45 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital post-processing, there's really no time. Something else comes to mind - given the current paranoia in the world, you probably want to try to process the film in situ if you have to go through baggage checks. High speed film especially may suffer if the X-ray scanners are pumped up as high as they can go. Carry the film in hand luggage - I think we dicussed this on the list before? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
I think the idea is that since the bag will block say 50% of the photons, that in essence it is like running the film through a machine 1/2 as strong - Original Message - From: Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll Karl Schulmeisters wrote: Their comment: Get a Film Bag so that everything can go trough the scanner... I think that they can pump up the dose and see through the bags as well if they look suspicious. rob
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), What PSI are you using as your threshold? - Original Message - From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:41:04 -0400 Barbara Martin Greene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. In my SS 4000 35 mm frames, which are mainly Tmax 100, I did a rough count once. I chose moderately (one stop) underexposed negs or night shots, so white dust specks/hairs would show up. I scanned with Vuescan at 16 bit straight through to photoshop and enlarged to 100% and went around the frame and counted dust specks. I live in a semi-arid area and humidity ranges from 20-50%RH. I store the negs in mylar sleeves, thumb cut from the side from Light Impressions (and stored in their folder/ box system) to avoid insertion scratches. I shoot each neg with an anti-static gun, and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), and I wear high quality cotton gloves. Then I examine negative at an angle under good lighting- and I almost never see any dust remaining on neg (keep reading tho). I keep an air cleaner (HEPA) in the room 24/7, overated for the size of room, and I keep the door closed with a seal on the bottom, and all windows closed, except a permanently window mounted air conditioner. Yada, yada... The count varies from 200-1000 spots per frame. I think a lot is due to dry climate and the increased resolution of scanner, or maybe I should circulate the air more than I do. The highest numbers come from a processing lab in Utah (dip and dunk). The lowest numbers come from rolls I have processed myself (I used a 2 micron water filter at one point) or even better, a little outfit in New Mexico which actually still does roll tank processing, with fresh solutions, etc, specializing in BW only. Since I am VERY low volume, I don't mind spotting away for two hours or more, as long as I can get up every half hour to take a quick screaming break. Hopes that helps. -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
Re: filmscanners: Gold CD-R's
My understanding is that it is the lacquer finish coat that causes the degradation. IE exposure to light and to airborne oxidants slowly makes it opaque enough to cause read errors. - Original Message - From: David Lewiston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:36 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Gold CD-R's Steve wrote: I know from past comments some of you have a strong preference for Gold CD-R's. I've settled on Mitsui Gold CDRs for everything important. Friends with high-end mastering studios (my main activity is music recording) tell me that the most durable digital storage currently available is MO. Unfortunately it's relatively expensive. Salutations, David L
Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries
I've used these in other situations (air horn for sailboat racing) and they work well. - Original Message - From: Gregory Georges [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:02 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: brandnew user queries I saw them at CompUSA. They are shown on the Web site at: http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?prodzip=mfg_id=89srch_type=mf g There is an electric pump and a hand pump, plus you need the can. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: brandnew user queries Gregory writes ... Has anyone tried the new air blowers ... They consist of a small pump and a fancy spray can. You pump the cans up when you need more air. Would the air not be dry and might these spray stuff on negatives and slides or might they be OK? ... The air wouldn't be absolutely dry, but it would NOT be 'wet' either. They actually sound like a good idea ... providing more air pressure than a squeeze-bulb, and avoiding some of the problems with the stuff that can come out of pressurized can dusters. Do you have a manufacturer for them?? shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Respectfully Creativity in and of itself, is not that scarce. OTOH, creative works, that contain a message that translates generally are. My wife owns a gallery and art school. The number of folks who come in with SOMETHING created, and the creativity of even the grade school participants (during the day she teaches art to homeschooled kids) is astounding. Then again, there are the folks who called the local paper to report a naked woman in the front yard of a building on Main Street - when we recently showed a nationally recognized scultors works. There is no reason why an artist ought not get compensated for the work they do. And most artists actually 'sell low' out of fear of rejection. Through my wife I have met quite a few artists that make a decent living at their work. And those that really are professional, DO have work that has more to it than those who dabble. The single biggest difference between artists making a living at what they do, is how much they actually just 'do the work'. Most 'starving artists' are actually either a) blocked b) really don't want to be artists, but like the image of it c) worried too much about 'being successful' with the small body of work they have, rather than just continually 'doing the work'. The hard part for photographers, unlike sculptors and painters in various media is that a) almost everyone has access to a camera, whereas most folks figure they simply are 'bad at art [read drawing]' b) shoot enough shots and you might get lucky - this makes some parts of the Stock industry just brutal c) photographic images are inherently reproducible, and hence lack quite as much 'uniqueness' to them - especially ones that have been or are being digitized in some form. But that doesn't mean you can't make an income of it. BUT ONLY if the creative rights are protected. - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Johnny writes: I am interested in how you would go about 'abolishing' royalties. By dramatically limiting the scope of copyright protection, and/or by greatly reducing its duration, perhaps to the same duration as patent protection. If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem. Not really. In the not-so-distant future, I think it will become a problem for artists and especially organizations that depend on royalties. Creative works are a scarce commodity ... Hardly. There are far more people with talent than there is demand for talent. This is why there are so many starving artists in the world, whereas there are very few starving engineers. Celebrity is a scarce commodity, and that's what usually commands the big bucks, not creative talent. But celebrity is ephemeral, so last year's solid gold may be this year's solid lead.
Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder
Thanks I've always wondered what the big deal with glass carriers was because I figured dust would be a hassle, and any glass between the negative and the sensor (be it CCD or PhotoPaper) simply serves to decrease contrast. - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:12 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:46:48 -0400 Jim Snyder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Note that I never mentioned powder. It does exist though, and is (or was) something weird like lycopodium spores I think. Glycerin is useable as a liquid, but washing and drying will be required afterwards. Best solution in enlargers is a half-glass carrier with Anti-NR glass in the top, IME. This is enough to flatten the film against the glassless lower carrier frame, without trapping dust against the emulsion. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder
My understanding of Newton Rings is that they came from the same source as the rainbow on an oil-slick or a thin prism put on a reflector. Namely you are getting 1/2 wave interference patterns from the light reflected at each boundary layer - a boundary layer is where the optical density, (or transmissivity etc ie the C of nu = C/lambda aka Freq = C/Wavelength), changes. At all such boundary layers, light gets reflected in proportion to how steep the gradient is (this is why lenses are coated to improve contrast - the coatings reduce the gradient). So the way to reduce Newton rings is to insure more than 1-2 wavelenths of separation between these reflective regions. Putting some translucent dust of sufficient diameter, between the surfaces in effect acts as a separator. But such dust would also act as a diffuser, reducing contrast and acuity - Original Message - From: Jim Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 8:49 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder on 8/29/01 10:37 PM, SKID Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: They might also use an Anti-Newton Rings powder on the glass between it and the subject being scanned. Sorry for my ignoranceWhat is 'Anti-Newton Rings powder'? When you place two flat surfaces together, you get a form of banding known as Newton Rings that represent the different transference of light between the surfaces due to the pressure. Glass slides, and even enlarger glass has been coated for years with a transparent substance that prevents flat/flat contact, spacing the two flat surfaces just far enough apart to prevent the pressure banding. Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: Best filmscanner, period!!! (strange title!)
Under Windows 2000 Pro onwards, SCSI drives are PnP. - Original Message - From: Ian Boag [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best filmscanner, period!!! (strange title!) Wotta crusty old bastard. Have to say though that I relate to the stuff about mission (ie livelihood) critical stuff. You have to have been there. I have a machine like that too. Experience has just about taught me that no upgrade is trivial and I'll spend many unbudgeted hours sorting out unexpected fallout FWIW Here's how I would approach this problem. I'd set things up so all my HDDs were dismountable in caddys. I'd run GHOST or something similar to give me a duplicate set to work with. I'd then remove the originals and put them someplace safe. If this was Win 9x I'd just plug the copied disk (s) into a new machine and let P P sort out any hardware probs for a while. Not an NT user, so I gather that can't be done. Anyway one can stuff about quite happily on the copy to scope the OS problems. Maybe I'd even do this on the original machine with the real HDDs parked safely out of it. My main machine contains all my dev source (I do it for a living). I have 2x30 GB drives in a mirrored RAID setup. One of them is in a caddy. Every week I take out the demountable drive and replace it. The RAID sorts all that out and re-syncs it. I have three drives that I rotate through the caddy slot. I've been bitten by tapes before - nothing beats a REAL HDD that you can plug into another machine and just have it go. Sorry for going a bit OT here .
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
There are a couple of other considerations why MF is popular in wedding photos Lots of weddings are shot in poor light - both during the ceremony and the candids, there is only so much the portable flash can do. MF film, because of its larger image gathering area, performs better in the 'lower boundary'. Think LPM - if a film has say 200lpm resolution in its optimal exposure range (call it Zone VI) - and lets assume its color film so it has a 'minus range' down to Zone III, in Zone III its resolution will be probably down to about 50lpm. Now 1 mm on a 35mm image, is 4% of the whole image (24mm high) so the total vertical resolution ends up being say 1200 linepairs - blow that up to an 8x10 and you are down to 120dpi!!! Whereas on the 6x7 the SAME IMAGE is captured with 3000 linepairs - which at 8x10 is still 300dpi! Net result is that you get much better image quality, tonality, shadow detail etc. in the 6x7. Second - you can't change film backs on a 35mm. On a 6x7, you can go from Provia 100 for the 3 shot candid up-close smooch at the table, switch backs, and be shooting iso400 print film for the Whole Room shot and dancing. This IS a place digital can make a difference in the '35mm slr format'. Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. The real resolution is still 3 or so megapixels. Interpolated resolution aint the same as the real thing Yet another thing to consider is image perspective. a 35mm SLR type, you are shooting 'eye to eye'. So for folks sitting, you are inducing parallax unless you kneel. For folks standing, you potentially over-emphasize facial detail. Shooting with an MF from the waist, changes both of these in a way that tends to be flattering for candid shots. Another part is the $1500. If I spend $1500, I want to feel I got my money's worth. Which means I want to be hiring someone that lets me feel like they are doing something that Uncle Harry with his Canon Rebel X cannot do. So if you show up with something that looks like a Rebel X - say a D-30, there is a value perception. That said, at a recent corporate event my wife and I attended, they had a 'get a shot with your sweetie' booth. And the guy there was using a D1 hooked up to a laptop with an external monitor for instant image review. It made a big difference, he reshot quite a few images where a couples hand wasn't quite right or the flash shadow was a bit unflattering etc. And the resultant images were prefectly fine for a wedding album. So I would suggest that a digital camera like the D-30 or the D1x would be fine for the 'studio shots' and the posed shots. As for commercial product shots - I work with a graphic artist that does layouts for Costco catalogs. ALL of those images are shot digitally. Lighting can be controlled very carefully, and digital has much greater 'grey scale' resolution (ie how many 'zones' it captures info in) than film does. And the ability to go straight from the camera into the catalog saves huge amounts in scanning costs. Which lets Costco save on the total cost of the catalog. Since the catalog work can be set up to be as close as possible and lit as needed, the D1x or D-30 works great in that environment. The main reason for going to 4x5 digital back is that the Tilt/shift/focus-depth controls are very useful in closeup product shots (I do art portfolio shots, and I much prefer the 4x5 to the 35mm. I don't need to be as 'perfectly aligned' with the 4x5 since I can compensate by changing the angle of the lens or film-plane independently). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography Formal wedding shots (in your studio or posed shots at the alter) have to be done with medium format film because the customer will frequently want an 11x14 enlargement or bigger. Candid shots at the reception can be done with 35mm film because the largest print requested is likely to be 8x10 (or 8x12). Other than some highend digital studio cameras, digital cameras can't compete with film for quality. A local wedding/portrait photographer in my area just bought a digital studio camera that he'll use for senior portraits (maximum print size typically requested by custormers is 8x10). Everthing else he does with film. Most wedding/portrait photographers keep their negatives for a minimub of several years in case the customer needs a reprint. With digital, storing the files is too expensive and time consuming. If you really want a digital camera and are trying to justify based on your using it for wedding photography, then at least explain the limitations to your custom! er! s ahead of time so they aren't d isappointed afterwards. Digital has no advantage over film that I can see for wedding photography, and that includes speed, since film can be processed in one hour for quick proofs. And, remember
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
As I understand it, the Betteman archive as been moved into conditioned storage, but the digitization still goes on (truth in advertising - I worked for Corbis when they were setting up their first scanning lab - but I no longer am in contact with them). I would suggest that the collapse of the dotCom economy has a lot to do with the rate at which ALL archives are being scanned. As for some annual maintenance of our personal archives - heck I have a tough enough time finding enough time to get stuff organized and filed the first time (hence my question about image management software) - much less spending a couple of days a year updating archives. Stuff has to go archival the first time, and it has to be pretty much hands off unless I have a need to use it. - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Art wrote: Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Which proves conclusively that even Money doesn't solve problems--unless, of course, you *use* it!!! ]:( Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:26:22 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters wrote: So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). From what I've read, Corbis actually throwing up their hands and accepting defeat. The vast majority of their Betteman Archive is degrading so rapidly that they said they would be unable to save it before it disintegrated. Rather than increase the number of people doing scanning, they decided to move the majority of the collection underground in an abandoned limestone mine, and hope this slows the process (or they simply want the collection out of the mind of the public in general).. Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images , and now don't care a great deal about that's left, in spite of it being an international treasure. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Art _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Image management software
I will need to look at iView (though I currently run on the PC platform). My base requirements are just the ability to track images based on keywords, date, serial number, submission history, submission status, rights status, and possibly a thumbnail (I don't scan everything). The ideal would be the ability to track any digital manip. As well as 'wetlab' darkroom processing including localized burning, dodging, paper type, enlarger used, exposure etc. - Original Message - From: frankmazz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Image management software Just curious, what are you looking for in such software? My dream is to find a system to track all scan settings and then any manipulation to the image. And, again dreaming, the system would be able to connect (relate) each variation (filename) to each other and to the original. How's that for a wish list? FrankM At 8/13/01 01:53 AM -0700, you wrote: I'm looking for some recommendations on what image management software folks are using. The size of my image collection, both scanned and unscanned is growing past my normal haphazard filing systems capabilities. Given the amount of images being scanned, anyone have any recommendations?
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some things I disagree with. I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit. At the time of discovery I worked for the IT department and watched the furious scramble to comply with the subpoenas issued for the backed up data. They had been using stuff that was 'industry standard', but within less than 10 years, they had difficulty finding a combination of a) reader b) computer c) operating system d) device driver that would let them extract the data, AND communicate it to a printer or other digital data system Recently I resurrected (or tried to ) an old Win 95 machine (5-8yrs old). Even though nothing had been done to it, other than move the boxes from one house to the other, it would not boot. I got it to boot using Linux, but that of course meant reformatting the boot drive, and since it no longer is the original OS, the other device drivers may or maynot work (one hard drive just would not spin up and the floppy drive was so out of alignment it would not read any floppies). So unless you want to become an electronics repair technician this isn't a viable alternative. And this is the problem with MOD CDROMs are susceptible to 'bit rot' - what happens is that exposure to any sort of light results in degradation of the plastic protective coating. The more use, the more the damage. So even if there are no scratches, that coating can, and does, become optically opaque (I suspect that atmospheric oxidation does this as well). Some studies have shown that as little as 5 years of sitting in an optical jukebox can cause enough bit-rot that stored source code will not compile without errors. I haven't seen studies on CDRs and CDRWs but I suspect they are more vulnerable to this. The same 'fogging' applies to DVDs of all forms (though perhaps the plastic formulations have improved). Removable IDEs have the problem that they are fragile, and the docking bays may or may not be supported by the OS flavour (yes in theory IDE is IDE, but it doesn't always work out that way). So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). - Original Message - From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently the
filmscanners: Image management software
I'm looking for some recommendations on what image management software folks are using. The size of my image collection, both scanned and unscanned is growing past my normal haphazard filing systems capabilities. Given the amount of images being scanned, anyone have any recommendations?
Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help
Remmember that Sony is the only monitor that supports the Trinitron mask, which gives you better image clarity than any other shadow mask technology. - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help Mitsubishi has an excellent reputation as well, but again I don't know about the gain controls. Maris - Original Message - From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 10:12 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help | Sure, but none of the stores had G420's. | Searching the specs on the Sony www site | yields ambiguous answers. I did find that | NEC and Viewsonic monitors offer individual | gain control for RGB. So I'm starting to | consider those monitors. | -JimD | | At 12:49 AM 8/5/01 -0500, you wrote: | I don't know the answer, but while you were in the stores didn't you enter | the menu screens and see if the RGB gain adjustments were available? | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 10:33 PM | Subject: filmscanners: RGB gain/bias controls? help | | | | Excuse this off topic post | | It is astounding to me how hard it is to get details on some | | computer products. | | | | I'm looking to get two monitors for a | | dual head display to use for scanning and photoshop. | | | | I'm interested in the Sony 19 monitors. | | After numerous trips to multiple computer stores here in | | silicon valley I think that the 19 Sony G400 monitor does | | NOT have RGB gain and bias controls. I believe that the | | Sony G420 19 monitor DOES have RGB gain and bias | | controls. | | | | Can anyone on the list confirm or contradict this? | | | | I've been using a 21 Sony from work that does have this | | capability and am convinced I need RGB gain/bias | | control for calibrating with my ColorVison MC7 calibrator | | | | | | Walk into your local computer store and mention | | color profiles and see what happens. The most insightful | | response I got was something akin to, baseball's been | | very, very good to me.' | | Thanks, | | JimD | | | | | | | |
filmscanners: HP 5370 and Win2K
I'm having a devil of a time getting my new HP 5370 to work with Win2K. Its 'new to me' though pretty much fresh out of the box. So I ordered the driver disk from HP. They in their infinite wisdom, sent me a disk for the 5300, which I promptly installed. My first clue was when the scanner inched forward 1/4 and then timed out. OK, back on the phone with HP and they say oops, and send me a disk labled PrecisionScan Pro V2.51 which they claim is the right disk for the 5370. I run it, and it prompts me to install the USB drivers which I do. So I plug in my 5370 and the PnP wizard says new Hardware and identifies it as an HP 5300! Then it prompts me for the HP5300cu.cpl file - which doesn't exist on the V2.51 disk I received. What's up with this? Why is the system recognizing my 5370 as a 5300? How do I get it to stop? Where do I find decent drivers for HP scanners?
Re: filmscanners: LS-30 and Windows 2000
The 'name' or 'id' of a USB device is transmitted by the device itself if it is fully compatible with the USB spec. The 'new hardware wizard' compares the name to its list of 'installed devices' and if it doesn't recognize it, it prompts you. So you have to have a fully sucessful install for the driver details to get added to the list. There is some wierdness with some scanners (like the Umax 2000u ) where it will work with Windows 2000 ONLY if the boot partition is FAT file system - and won't work if it is NTFS. Umax has been particularly misleading in how they claim system compatibility with their scanners. - Original Message - From: Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS-30 and Windows 2000 Kerry Thompson wrote I recently installed a LS-30 on a new Win 2000 professional system. The computer recognizes the scanner at startup but does not seem to install a driver for it. Each startup the computer again recognizes the scanner and begins the new hardware wizard. Is there a Win 2000 compatibility problem? The scanner seems to work ok with either Vuescan or Nikonscan 3.1 which I downloaded from the web. My scsi card is an Adaptec 2903b. Kerry: I had a similar experience with LS-30 and Windows 2000. All necessary software, drivers, etc. were installed, but Windows 2000 always ran the 'new hardware' wizard at startup -- I could just cancel the wizard and use the scanner without problems. I did fix it, so I don't see the wizard on startup any more. I'm sorry, but I don't remember exactly what I did. It was something to do with getting Windows to register that it knows about the scanner -- by making the right choices in the 'new hardware' wizard, I think. I know this is not very useful to you, but at least you know you're not the only victim, and that it can be fixed. If you try various options in the wizard and (unlike me), keep a record of what does and doesn't work, you should find the answer. Then (unlike me) you can contribute a really useful post to this list. Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
You don't save that much on processing. And remmember, a $3500 premium (vs top end film Nikon or Canon) buys quite a bit of processing - especially at bulk rates. What it saves in sports and news shots is Time To Cover. - Original Message - From: Derek Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote: OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
And the heat is the issue in the case of the Betteman archive. As I understood the article, the storage in NYC wasn't very well conditioned. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:50 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings) Well, two comments, 1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage 2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in apartments in cities in temperate zones during the summer. Keep it cool, keep the humidity below 50% and constant, and your film will think it was at the spa, in fact, it might come out looking and feeling younger than when it went in ;-) Art Robert Kehl wrote: Yeah Tony, that was news to me, too. I was under the misassumption that film was the best archival medium around. Perhaps CD's or other backed up digital storage is best, if for no other reason than you can copy it forward without any loss before your digital media's (CD, tape, etc) archival life expires.
Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Well since the film I have from HS is some 30yrs old, and has been treated awfully for the most part, and still hasn't shown film-base deterioration, I don't think its nearly as big an emergency as the below describes. - Original Message - From: Hersch Nitikman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings) Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and slides. HerschAt 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: . BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.Oh, you might think so ;) - but see belowNishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence Institute, so appears to know his stuff.It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the heebie-jeebies...INDUSTRY NEWSWarning: Negative base deteriorationIf you haven't been using polyester based film (such as Kodak Estar base films), then I expect that most of you won't have any negatives left within a few decades. Let me give you the sad story first before I talk about the whys and hows. I got a call around 1992 or so from Evelyn New York photographer known for her coffee table books in the 1950s and 60s of European cities. She called because she went into her negative collection and found that they were all badly distorted and the emulsions were lifting off. We had been researching this problem since 1988 and were very aware of what the problem was. I had to tell her that her life's work (other than what books and prints were already out in the world) was gone and there was nothing that could be done. A few could be saved by special methods, but it's so labor intensive that of her thousands of negatives, it would only be worth treating a couple.(snip) Douglas Nishimura Research Scientist, Image Permanence InstituteRegards Tony Sleephttp://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. Lucas recently was quoted as saying that he can think of no reason to go back to film (having shot with digital HD). Sports Photogs at Sydney 2000 were finding that the Canon D-30 gave them as good a result of freeze-frame action as Provia and Velvia - but without the sometimes nagging pinhole bubbles in the emulsion. Basically if you can afford the high end resolution cameras, you are close to being able to replace film. And shooting on film really doesn't give you more ways to make money on your work. A lot (if not most) film these days gets telecine'd so that it can be rebroadcast via HD, digital Cable, DBS or DVD. Shooting straight to digital removes this expensive step. That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up, and I can't afford a scanning back for my 4x5 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/22/2001 3:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days...No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, "convenient", as the "instant" films used to be. The porn industry is a legitimate business and I wouldn't think there'd be a problem finding a lab that would process film for it. As I've said before, shooting on film gives you more ways to make money from your work, so a pro would not typically shoot with a digital camera. I suspect that most porn shot in digital format is done with video cameras by husbands and wives for their own personal consumption. Pros would want to shoot film, if it'd make more money for them. Well, I guess I get to tie the knot in this thread. We're off topic and I don't want to cause Tony any more grief than he already has with other issues. And I certainly don't want him to banish me to wherever he banished "Dickey!" Cheers, Roger
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Well this has another 'permanence problem'. I still have in my 'archive' of storage media 2 9track 6250 tapes (from less than 20 yrs ago and now effectively unreadable) 6 8 Floppy disks (now unreadable) 3 IoMega removable disks (from 10 years ago - now unreadable) lots of 3.5 floppies, which are rapidly becoming unreadable on many machines OTOH, I have a cabinet full of negatives from 30+ years ago - and negatives from my grandmother's time, as well as positives, that survived Displaced Person's Camps and all sorts of horrible situations. How many CDRoms do you think would have made it through Forced Labor camps of WWII? ALL of which are 'readable' (ie printable) Data CD-ROMs, exposed to sunlight, have a life expectancy of about 15years before bit-rot becomes uncorrectable (not AS big a deal in image and music CDs where it appears as noise) As for Digital having the same quality as film - maybe if you are purely looking at 35mm - but I would disagree here as well. Note also, that as wonderful as an Epson 1280 is, It can't do 16x20 or larger. I can with my chemical enlarger. Pretty trivially. That said, I'm not an anti-digital luddite. But unless you are going to spring for a Canon D-30 or a Nikon D-1, even point-and-shoot film cameras give you better image quality, and I will take the crispness of a photographic print over a glossy inkjet anyday. - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:28 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom John wrote: the only difference that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. OK, here's a thought: Since the permanence of a digital print is relatively unknown, empirically, why not include a CD with the picture, with a print purchase? It would add about $5US to the price, if you did a mess of them at the same time. There's probably something I'm not taking into consideration, sort of like Will Roger's idea to get German U-Boats out of action in WW-I--You just bring the temperature of the Ocean up to boiling! Ah don't know how you'd *do* it--Ah just come up with the ideas! :-) Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:36:40 -0700 I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts? (I have been to Wilhelm's site - http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm - but he seems to limit his studies to digital.) Thank, John J. Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and print permanence. He has several books out of the subject. He has since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this information. As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output... When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing is far more stable that inkjet. However, if you use inks and paper types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years. Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a 17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue. He gives higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks. There are some ink and paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any accelerated testing processes. Art _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36x 48 - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80x64 Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... - Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up What is that point (print size) for your work? -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs The problem is that you need to remmember to make a third backup about 3/4 through the MTBF to be able to propogate your data forwards. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36"x 48" - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80"x64" Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... As far as I know, the digital backs for 4x5 cameras do not cover anywhere near the entire 4x5 film plane. Therefore, film is the best choice if size of enlargement is the prime consideration. I agree with your previous post concerning the fact that film will last many, many years, while digital storage of photos is very limited in life. The US Copyright Office at the Library of Congress will not accept the common digital storage methods we use for that very reason. According to their web site, however, they do have a study team looking at the issue. And if technology ever solves the digital storage issue, I'm sure they'll change their policy and begin accepting such submissions. In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. So, it looks like film will be around for a while longer. It's more permanent than digital, it's easier to archive, it's capable of higher resolution, and you can always scan it if you need digital.
Re: filmscanners: which space?
Good point, I had forgot that. And this is in essence why in a given configuration, the CMYK space is more compressed than RGB. - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 11:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? Unfortunately there is one point which you don't mention - CMYK is defined as the color space or gamut of *printable* colors. In theory you could perhaps have more colors using C, M and Y with the addition of K but today's inks can't print all those colors and in fact can't print all the colors we can see on the monitor. When by definition CMYK is limited to printable colors, its gamut is smaller than that of RGB. CMYK is not defined mathematically but is defined using a device-dependent (i.e. the printing press) methodology. Maris - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 11:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? | Consider this | | CMY are the complimentary colors of RGB. This means that according to color | theory, you can mix any color in RGB that you would want to with CMY. | The difference is that K is gray scale - intensity if you will. So what | that means is that if you were to look at a plot of the color spaces with | the X axis going 'into' the page, for RGB, you would see only one 'sheet' of | color space. For CMYK you would see a 'sheet' corresponding to each | gradation of 'K'. Clearly there is more gamut in CMYK. | | - Original Message - | From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:32 PM | Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? | | | I'm not a photoshop expert. I do know a bit about the abstract math | behind | the colorimetry. I don't see why you would not be able to do what you | suggest. | - Original Message - | From: Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:55 PM | Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? | | |CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. | But |that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. | | OK. Are you suggesting that some sort of CMYK settings in Photoshop | could | make the CMYK mode's gamut more similar to RGB, and thus reduce the | losses | in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions? (Asumming you would print to these | CMYK | settings.) | | Bob Wright | Oops. That should have been ...would not print to these CMYK | settings... | | | | |
Re: filmscanners: which space?
CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. But that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. In essence, this isn't any different than manipulating The Zone System - ie where the dynamic range of paper is less than the dynamic range of film, which in turn is less than the dynamic range of our eyes. Maris Lidaka wrote: The point is that yes, there will be damage and loss without question but, at least for me, there are times when the benefits of being able to adjust in CMYK outweigh these damages. Sure, I completely agree. The key though, just like with the Zone System is to understand what is going on. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 12:34 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? Dear Karl As CMYK is a much reduced colour space compared to RGB I would have thought that made it exactly the case. The true test would be to make multiple conversions from RGB to CMYK and back and see if quality suffered, which of course it does. The real test would be to make the conversion several times in different programmes. R=25%, G=15%, B=10% converts to:- QUARK C25 M50 Y65 K64 PAGEMAKER C56 M74 Y83 K65 FREEHANDC75 M85 Y90 PHOTOSHOP C41 M62 Y69 K70 It all depends on your standards. For LVT output you can't even make one CMYK to RGB conversion without noticing adverse quality; for web use you can probably get away with several. In a message dated 26/5/01 8:29:01 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not exactly the case. What is the case is that a particular Hue, Intensity value - what our eyes perceive as a unique 'color value' can be rendered with multiple combinations of RGB. The same is not true for CYMK So when you map from RGB into ANY color space, you essentially lose some information. Namely you lose the mapping back to the original value settings. That doesn't mean you can't get back to an RGB triplet that will look the same, but it does mean that say if you had set the RGB triplet value to Rx,Gy,Bz then mapped to CYMK and you went back, Rx',Gy',Bz' might not have x=x',y=y',z=z'. This matters because you then can't just 'undo' any filtering you did prior to the mapping. Other color spaces have unique tuplet values. This has to do with the fact that in CYMK, intensity is mapped into the gray-scale K, whereas in RGB, intensity is a function of the particulare RGB values. Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: which space?
I'm not a photoshop expert. I do know a bit about the abstract math behind the colorimetry. I don't see why you would not be able to do what you suggest. - Original Message - From: Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. But that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. OK. Are you suggesting that some sort of CMYK settings in Photoshop could make the CMYK mode's gamut more similar to RGB, and thus reduce the losses in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions? (Asumming you would print to these CMYK settings.) Bob Wright Oops. That should have been ...would not print to these CMYK settings...
Re: filmscanners: which space?
Consider this CMY are the complimentary colors of RGB. This means that according to color theory, you can mix any color in RGB that you would want to with CMY. The difference is that K is gray scale - intensity if you will. So what that means is that if you were to look at a plot of the color spaces with the X axis going 'into' the page, for RGB, you would see only one 'sheet' of color space. For CMYK you would see a 'sheet' corresponding to each gradation of 'K'. Clearly there is more gamut in CMYK. - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:32 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? I'm not a photoshop expert. I do know a bit about the abstract math behind the colorimetry. I don't see why you would not be able to do what you suggest. - Original Message - From: Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. But that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. OK. Are you suggesting that some sort of CMYK settings in Photoshop could make the CMYK mode's gamut more similar to RGB, and thus reduce the losses in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions? (Asumming you would print to these CMYK settings.) Bob Wright Oops. That should have been ...would not print to these CMYK settings...
Re: filmscanners: which space?
That's not exactly the case. What is the case is that a particular Hue, Intensity value - what our eyes perceive as a unique 'color value' can be rendered with multiple combinations of RGB. The same is not true for CYMK So when you map from RGB into ANY color space, you essentially lose some information. Namely you lose the mapping back to the original value settings. That doesn't mean you can't get back to an RGB triplet that will look the same, but it does mean that say if you had set the RGB triplet value to Rx,Gy,Bz then mapped to CYMK and you went back, Rx',Gy',Bz' might not have x=x',y=y',z=z'. This matters because you then can't just 'undo' any filtering you did prior to the mapping. Other color spaces have unique tuplet values. This has to do with the fact that in CYMK, intensity is mapped into the gray-scale K, whereas in RGB, intensity is a function of the particulare RGB values. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:38 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? In a message dated 22/5/01 3:05:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We don't disagree - I work primarily in LAB and CMYK myself, for both web and print, but then convert to RGB for final contrast adjustments and to send to the printer. Dear Maris To the best of my knowledge RGB to CMYK is a one way conversion. CMYK to RGB although possible will cause problems. Although its OK for web use and ink jet printers have you tried litho print when it needs converting back again? Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Oops! Sorry about the confusing nomenclature. What I meant to express was that at sufficiently small angles, the 'side opposite' leg is effectively the far leg of a 90deg triangle (its an assumption but its pretty darn close). That means that you can apply the basic geometric rule of Side Opposite Tan(theta) = Side Adjacent. So for the average human eye (something like 90% of the population - with folks like Chuck Yeager being the radical exceptions, which largely explains his survival and success in Korea), the limit of resolution occurs when Theta is 1/60 of a degree of arc - which as you correctly pointed out is 1 minute of arc. At 500dpi, the inter-line spacing is 0.002inches. So this means that we can solve for Side Adjacent Side Opposite 0.002inches Side Adjacent = -- = --- = 6.875 Inches. Tan(1/60deg) 0.000291 This is a very well researched formulae - the Society for Information Display has lots more info on the mathematical models of how the eye works - fairly precise models too. So if we go from this equation, we know that if we look at the original film at a big enough enlargement (say 8x10), then we will be able to see any artifacts in the film of the kind being described, if we look more closely than 6.5. Since folks have been doing this in the darkroom for decades - using grain focussers and the like, and these artifacts have not been observered, it is reasonable to conclude that they don't exist except in the opto-electronics of the scanner process - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? Karl Schulmeisters wrote: I don't think this is the case. Otherwise you would have seen this phenomenon from enlargements made from transparencies long ago. Consider this, the human eye can resolve about 1 minute of 1 degree of arc (1/60 of a degree) in the horizontal plane (most sensitive - less in the vertical) So take a 35mm slide (which is about 1 tall) and enlarge it full frame to 8x10 that's an enlargement factor of about 8. So a 4000dpi scan of a 35mm slide is about the same as a 500dpi scan of an 8x10. So plugging 1/500th of an inch into the formula X = TanTheta Y where X is the lines/inch and Y is the eye's distance from the 8x10 enlargement, we get ..002 = Tan(1/60deg) Y or Y (max eye resolution) = .002/.000291 = 6.875. If human eyes actually functioned based upon a mathematical formula, you'd have it all solved! ;-) Just so some people unfamiliar with the nomenclature won't get too confused, the symbol [] can be used to both indicate inches as a linear measurement and minutes (1/60th of one degree) of an arc. Your first reference (1) is one inch, your second reference (6.875) is 6.875 minutes of a degree of an arc. The big problem we all face in analyzing the artifacts or other information we see in a scan is that we are looking at the scan in a translated format, either via a monitor (via a software package) or a print (usually inkjet for most people, via a print driver program) each of which add other confounding factors to what is being provided by the scanner. SInce none of these are purely optical in nature, we're in uncharted waters, with no sextant to get us ashore, or is that a-sure? ;-) Art IOW, anyone who has looked at a full frame 8x10 enlargement of a 35mm image, closer than 7 is in essence 'scanning' the 35mm slide at greater than 4000dpi. And since we don't have reports of folks seeing this sort of difference in enlargements at this level (remmember folks use grain focussers to get even higher resolution during focussing of an enlargement) - I don't think there is any 'real information' there.
Re: filmscanners: which space?
The complexity comes in when you add translation into another device. Lets say your original RGB values were 128,64,168, then after mapping through CYMK and back to RGB you now have 138,16, 186 (I'm making these numbers up, but they're somewhat believable. Now you want to print to a printer that tends towards green and only takes RGB as input. So you print a test print and low and behold its too green. You only have 16 levels of green left to futz with. From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 11:58 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? Which is fine by me - so long as RxGxBx look the same as Rx'Gx'Bx' my result will be what I want it to be. Maris - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 2:23 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? | That's not exactly the case. What is the case is that a particular Hue, | Intensity value - what our eyes perceive as a unique 'color value' can be | rendered with multiple combinations of RGB. The same is not true for CYMK | | So when you map from RGB into ANY color space, you essentially lose some | information. Namely you lose the mapping back to the original value | settings. That doesn't mean you can't get back to an RGB triplet that will | look the same, but it does mean that say if you had set the RGB triplet | value to Rx,Gy,Bz then mapped to CYMK and you went back, Rx',Gy',Bz' might | not have | x=x',y=y',z=z'. [snipped]
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
Vai jus esat latvietis? Karlis Schulmeisters - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 6:28 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding And, of course, the color gamut of film is greater than that of print. Maris - Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding | There is no doubt in my mind that scanning the negative is far better | than scanning the print. | | My list of some reasons to scan from negative rather than print, | accumulated over three years of neg scan experience (and with a | lot of jump-start knowledge from others on the filmscanners list): [snipped]
